On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 21:48:37 EDT paul said:
>Charles,
>
>>Further, the welfare state is basically a capitalist creation.
>
>Without too much carrying on, can you explain why, and how?
>
--Well, no.  It can't be done without a lot of carrying on.  I hate to
do a long posting, especially since it is only peripheral to Hungary.
But briefly, notice if you will that the advanced welfare states are
all industrial nations of the West:  England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Holland, Germany, and France.  All have been among the largest producers
of goods and services since the Industrial Revolution.  All are
basically capitalist (I don't usually use that word and Adam Smith
never used it) countries.  The welfare state represents a political
bargain between the entrepreneurial class and the working class.  It's
purpose, in political terms, was to compensate for the market failures
of capitalism.  Even during the Labour Party's heyday in the late
1940s, Only about 15% of British industry was nationalized.  In Sweden,
there was very little nationalization, although most people think of
Sweden as a socialist country.  It is not.  In the late 1940s, a
member of the Swedish cabinet gave a talk about his country at my
undergraduate college.  Someone started a question with, "Since Sweden
is a socialist country..." and the minister interrupted him with a
very red face and did five minutes about how Sweden was not socialist,
because 85% of industry was in private hands and another 10% was
owned by cooperatives.

The Left's criticism of the welfare state centers on the notion that
it is really a capitalist creation.  See Gosta Esping-Andersen's
*The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism* or Arthur Gould's outstanding
*Capitalist Welfare Systems* which is a comparative study of Sweden,
the UK, and Japan.

>>Now if the protestant work ethic started in Northern Europe than how would
>>one explain the transformation of these Northern European nations into welfar
e
The answer to Marc's question, in brief, is contained in the above
discussion, but I'll emphasize it here.  Because Northern Europe was
industrialized by Protestants!  They worked at industrialization harder
than other countries and developed a large industrial working class that
had the political muscle to demand that something be done about
market failures.  Look at who benefits primarily from the welfare state:
Pensions for retired WORKERS.  Unemployment Insurance for people who
are normally part of the WORKFORCE.  Benefits for occupational disease
and on-the-job injuries of WORKERS.  And so on.  There are provisions
for the poor, of course, but these in all countries boil down to
means-tested benefits, a principle enshrined in the Elizabethan Poor
Laws of 1601 (43 Elizabeth).  Ironically (see Esping-Andersen or
George and Wilding's *Ideology and Social Welfare* among others),
the major beneficiaries of the welfare state are the middle classes,
because of who tends to know about the services and who chooses to
use them.  This is getting too long, but as an example, if Social
Security supports a middle-class accountant's parents, then he doesn't
have to, and he has more disposable income for his own use.  Lots of
day care is provided in Europe at public expense.  Who uses it?  The
poor?  No.  Two-income families--yuppies!

This is a bit oversimple, but I really am reluctant to extend my
remarks.  Any questions?

Class dismissed!
>

> still valid.  Christianity provides a set  of standards of behavior which are
> eternal.
> PERIOD! :-)
>
> Paul Gelencser

Please spell out for me, which of the human standards of behaviour are
exclusively Christian. Thanks, 

So. Those people who live "good" life, do not need religion.
They can learn from other people, who also live "good" life.
Don't you think? Eva Durant

>
> rural India or Africa, maybe.  He explained that the main thing is for people
> to live with respect for others, and contemplate seriously before taking
> serious actions.  The reason for religion is to teach people how to live - as
> a pillar of moral support.  If you live this way because you are a good
 person,
> or because your culture has taught you to live this way, the bottom line is
 that
> you are living a good life, which is what God wants.  The notion you may have
> encountered is that people make moral decisions in spite of what their
> religion teaches.  That some people adopt a "new" religion, since it is
> easier to satisfy.  God did not intent life to be without challenges and
> struggle, but he does intend for people to meet those challenges.
>
> Paul

> >Now if the protestant work ethic started in Northern Europe than how would
> >one explain the transformation of these Northern European nations into
 welfare
> >states?.......marc
>
>
> Paul Gelencser

There is a familiar hidden agenda here; the wellfare state nurtures
the idle unemployed. If they just get on their bike... If they really
wanted to they'd find gainful employment...etc, see Jeliko.
 Please, count up number of unemployed vs vacancies, the do not
correlate.  If there are useful work to be done: employ with
decent pay someone, not slave labour. If I have a choice of unpaid
streetsweeping or washing dishes etc., I'd rather do another OU course
and look idle, anytime.  Eva Durant

> >
> > If you disagree with something that a religion teaches, do not argue that
> > you think they are wrong because of values taught be current cultural
> > trends.  Argue based on what you have taken the time to study.
> >
> > Paul Gelencser
>
> What I detest is the notion, that without religion one is not able
> to make personal/social/moral decisions (how to live, how to avoid
> making others unhappy etc) Eva Durant

What is the basis of such decisions?
I'm looking for logical consistency (ie. you can start with a viable
premise and take it to its logical conclusion.
I'm not looking for arguments without a foundation such as "because its best
for society" but a starting point as basic as "we evolved/were created" --
for example).

Mind you, I understand your point completely, but you can't just pull
moral decisions out of thin air... or can you?
What makes a decision moral?
Do social decisions follow moral guidelines or is it the other way around.
And if it is, is that beneficial?  What is beneficial anyways?  Who defines
what's right or not?  Who has the right to do so?

I think these are honest and very topical questions regarding this issue.
(And yes, there are some very "moral" but non-religious people.  That's not
the issue.  The issue is: where did their morality come from.
Unfortunately, these days there are a lot of religious people who are actually
very depraved, putting into question their own religiosity/morals.)

That's all for now.
--
SWFG


PS. Maybe this should be taken over to VITA?

> The only physical proof possible to offer, and it should be sufficient, are
 the
> miricles performed by Jesus, which are attested to be witnesses.  Other than
>  that,
> you will only see the working of God, in the achievements which you make, tha
t
>  you
> know you are no capable of.
>
> Paul Gelencser

There are witnesses to miracles performed by other Holy Men, I hope, you
do believe the existence of a lot of other Gods.
Things I achieved so far were well in my capabilities - and this was
not such a lot as to sound like boasting. I would wellcome a few
miracles, my ambitions are boundless... Fascinating stuff. Eva Durant

------------------------------------
AUTHOR: MAIL.SLAVLIB1
------------------------------------
Received: from LIBRARY.BERKELEY.EDU by MAIL.LOC.GOV
        (Soft-Switch Central V4L380P3); 09 Sep 1994 03:14:57 GMT
Received: by library.Berkeley.EDU (4.1/1.31)
        id AA07507; Fri, 9 Sep 94 00:16:33 PDT
Received: from nak.berkeley.edu by library.Berkeley.EDU (4.1/1.31)
 id AA07480; Fri, 9 Sep 94 00:15:29 PDT
Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40)
 id AAA19142; Fri, 9 Sep 1994 00:10:43 -0700
Message-Id: >
Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2043; Fri, 09 Sep 94 00:10:35 PDT
Received: from HUSZEG11.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
 BSMTP id 0517; Fri, 09 Sep 94 00:10:34 PDT
Received: from HUSZEG11.BITNET (J20E008) by HUSZEG11.BITNET (Mailer R2.10
 ptf000) with BSMTP id 8180; Fri, 09 Sep 94 09:11:05 +0200
Date:         Fri, 09 Sep 94 09:09:46 +0200
From: "Ms. Eneh Szabo" >
Subject:      a new Hungarian OPAC
To: 
Errors-To: 
X-Sequence: 761



Dear Colleagues:

I think that it may interest you that the OPAC of an important academic
library (Main Library of the Attila Jozsef University, Szeged) is accessible
online to the whole of Internet society.
The log file of loging follows below. Please try and let us know your
comments.

Best regards,

Ms. Eneh Szabo


or


----------------------------the log file-----------------------------------
          JATECAT - Jozsef Attila University Catalogue&Databases
        Library Databases of the University Library - Szeged/Hungary


TELNET libra.bibl.jate.u-szeged.hu
     OR
TELNET 160.114.9.130
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Trying 160.114.9.130 ...
Connected to libra.bibl.jate.u-szeged.hu.
Escape character is '^-'.


UNIX(r) System V Release 4.0 (libra)

JATE Central Library Catalogue
Try opac as login name

login: opac

------

      =========================================================================
         JJJJJJ     AAAA    TTTTTTTT  EEEEEEEE    CCCCCC     AAAA    TTTTTTTT
            JJ   AA    AA     TT     EE        CC     CC  AA    AA     TT
           JJ   AA    AA     TT     EE        CC         AA    AA     TT
        JJJJJJ AAAAAAAA     TT     EEEEEE    CC         AAAAAAAA     TT
         JJ   AA    AA     TT     EE        CC         AA    AA     TT
        JJ   AA    AA     TT     EE        CC     CC  AA    AA     TT
  JJJJJJ    AA    AA     TT     EEEEEEEE   CCCCCCC   AA    AA     TT
 =========================================================================

           Jozsef Attila Tudomanyegyetem - Egyetemi Konyvtar - Szeged
               Main Library of Jozsef Attila University - Szeged

       =================================================================

                  Open Public Access Catalog of the Library

                 (Catalog of the obtained books since 1977)


Press RETURN to continue..
------

        Welcome!
          Try database KOKO: the library catalogue (over 120.000 items).

        Warning!
          Accented letters are coded according to ISO8859-2.
          Note: TERM=vt100 defaults to stripped off accents!

        Select character conversion:
          1) No conversion (default)
          2) Strip accents off
          3) Convert to code page 852


        Select interface language:
          1) Hungarian (default)
          2) English


Entering BRS/JATECAT ...
------
*** BRS/Search for UNIX ***

Initializing ...

             Copyright (c) 1992 by BRS Software Products,
               A Division of InfoPro Technologies, Inc.
                       All rights reserved.
     Use by unauthorized persons is a violation of applicable laws.

Revision 6.1  (050-03929-SOLARIS-MTA/CO-ABX)

Distributed by: MTA Sztaki
   Licensed To: JATE Kozponti Konyvtar

BRS/Search Full-Text Retrieval System
-------
 BRS/JATECAT: Database Selection Menu

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
(L)ist available databases;                      (Q)uit System
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter database name: L

Enter starting characters -All databases-:
 BRS/JATECAT: Available databases listing

DBNM   Docs     Updated     Description
---- --------  ---------   -------------------------------------------------
EBIB   14019   14 Apr 94   JATE Publications of the Faculty & Staff
FIAL    2089   23 Apr 94   Current Journals (being built)
FILM    2850   14 May 94   FILM database (being built)
HSCI  110497   31 Mar 94   Hungarian Science Citation Index
KOKO  132000   13 May 94   JATE Catalogue of Library

End of list -- Enter database name: koko

KOKO: JATE Kozponti Konyvtar BRS katalogusa
Total of 132000 documents in database.

Strike RETURN to continue:
------
 BRS/JATECAT: Search and Options Menu

There are no queries yet

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I)ndex a pattern;                                   (H)elp!
(R)eview/purge queries;    (D)isplay a query;        (C)hange db
(L)ist field names;                                  (Q)uit
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter your query or a command letter:
  1_: h
----
 BRS/JATECAT: HELP!

  The KOKO database is the catalogue of those books which have been purchased
 since 1977 in the library.  Generally, the database is updated once a month.
  Searches can be made for every word in all the records of the catalogue.
 Though the subject headings are in Hungarian users can search for words
 in foreign languages supposed that those are in other (e.g. title or series)
 fields. To search topics you can also use the Universal Decimal Classification
 (UDC) numbers.
  If you see a number as a prompt at the beginning of a line (e.g. 3_) then
 you are in a search option. The symbol of truncation is the dollar sign ($).
 The contents of each field (paragraph) are searchable separately, too.
 The listing of the fields (paragraphs) is aided by a separate option
 in the menu.

  Examples for searching:

   szociologia.su.  => 'szociologia' (sociology) in the subject heading field
   szociologia$.su. => all the words beginning with 'szociologia' (sociology)
                       in the subject heading field
   konyvtar.ti.     => the word 'konyvtar' (library) in the title field
   jokai.au.        => searching for the works of the author named 'jokai'
   jokai.pe.        => searching for works reading about the author 'jokai'
   ...... etc.
   2 and 3          => the intersection of searches #2 and #3

  The search term may be written in lower case letters without accents:
 the words in the index are without accents.
  The actual command is the expression what you see in square brackets
 on the screen: if you hit an enter that will be performed. The letters
 and other characters in round brackets refer to other available commands.
 To carry out those commands you have to type in the corresponding sign
 with or without an ENTER.
  Reports on problems and other remarks are welcome to the following e-mail
 address:
           Geza Bakonyi 
  Good work to all our users!

On Thu, 8 Sep 1994, paul wrote:

> Does anyone know the current status of the Slovak dam on the
> Duna (hell if I can remember how to spell thast word - Gabczekova?)

Why don't use it's correct name, then? Bosi Eromu.

                                                Attila

<  Mind you, I understand your point completely, but you can't just pull
<  moral decisions out of thin air... or can you?
<  What makes a decision moral?
<  Do social decisions follow moral guidelines or is it the other way around.

The answer to this seemingly endless discussion is simple:

            There is no such a thing as MORALITY...


..marc horchler

A miracle has happened!

Or at least a half miracle.
Namely: I, a militant atheist, agree with Paul Gelencser's priest (not with
Paul himself!).  Paul ) wrote in Hungary#71:

> [the Priest] explained that the main thing is for people
> to live with respect for others, and contemplate seriously before taking
> serious actions.  The reason for religion is to teach people how to live - as
> a pillar of moral support.  If you live this way because you are a good
> person, or because your culture has taught you to live this way, the bottom
> line is that you are living a good life, which is what God wants.  The notion
> you may have encountered is that people make moral decisions in spite of what
> their religion teaches.  That some people adopt a "new" religion, since it is
> easier to satisfy.  God did not intent life to be without challenges and
> struggle, but he does intend for people to meet those challenges.

If this is the essence of Catholicism, please, can I join in?
The best of both world would be if this version of Catholicism or whatever
"new" religion that might be, would come with no ceremonies, no churches, no
priests.  We all could exercise our faith - along the above lines - at home,
looking into our private souls.  No joint chantings, no clergymen, no decretes,
no confessions, no holly scripts.  No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, no
Ascension day.

Just to live a good life, love and respect each other, watch our own actions,
make our decisions on a moral basis.  Hallelujah!  For the the price of such a
happiness I would donate most of my earthly possessions to the Church's
coffers.  (What for, if the organisation makes itself obsolete?).

Did the Church become that tolerant?  Are we so close to Paradise?
Or, perhaps, Paul has met somebody who was more a good man than a priest?
Or, maybe, I totally misread the text...

Peace be upon you all!   Gabor

P.S.  I love the subject, but it is not specific enough for a newsgroup,
dedicated to Hungarian issues.  True, death is also quite universal, so I've
shut up about that too.  Shall we move over to another group?  /G

Gloria Steinem writes:

> >
> >>Further, the welfare state is basically a capitalist creation.
> >
> >Without too much carrying on, can you explain why, and how?
> >
> --Well, no.  It can't be done without a lot of carrying on.  I hate to
> do a long posting, especially since it is only peripheral to Hungary.
> But briefly, notice if you will that the advanced welfare states are
> all industrial nations of the West:  England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
> Holland, Germany, and France.
Interestingly, you have left out Japan, which in its own way also belongs
to this group, also I would not classify France as a Protestant state and
neither would Austria and Belgium belong to the Protestant grouping. So, it
may not be a solely religion based initiation of activity. Do you really
feel that work ethic and social responsibility can be directly tied to
religion?

> All have been among the largest producers
> of goods and services since the Industrial Revolution.  All are
> basically capitalist (I don't usually use that word and Adam Smith
> never used it) countries.  The welfare state represents a political
> bargain between the entrepreneurial class and the working class.  It's
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this perhaps a shift away from the beginnings of the "capitalist" class
from mercantilist origins to those who had "worker" origins? I am also
puzzled by the shift from the "working" class here to the later used
"middle" class as being identical. IMHO, the whole marxist theory went out
the window, when the class he called "workers" became a significant
purchasing class. Why exploit someone by not paying him enough if then he
can't buy your or your customers pruduct?

> The Left's criticism of the welfare state centers on the notion that
> it is really a capitalist creation.  See Gosta Esping-Andersen's
> *The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism* or Arthur Gould's outstanding
> *Capitalist Welfare Systems* which is a comparative study of Sweden,
> the UK, and Japan.

> >>Now if the protestant work ethic started in Northern Europe than how
would
> >>one explain the transformation of these Northern European nations into
welfare
> The answer to Marc's question, in brief, is contained in the above
> discussion, but I'll emphasize it here.  Because Northern Europe was
> industrialized by Protestants!  They worked at industrialization harder
> than other countries and developed a large industrial working class that
> had the political muscle to demand that something be done about
> market failures.  Look at who benefits primarily from the welfare state:
> Pensions for retired WORKERS.  Unemployment Insurance for people who
> are normally part of the WORKFORCE.  Benefits for occupational disease
> and on-the-job injuries of WORKERS.  And so on.  There are provisions
> for the poor, of course, but these in all countries boil down to
> means-tested benefits, a principle enshrined in the Elizabethan Poor
> Laws of 1601 (43 Elizabeth).  Ironically (see Esping-Andersen or
> George and Wilding's *Ideology and Social Welfare* among others),
> the major beneficiaries of the welfare state are the middle classes,
> because of who tends to know about the services and who chooses to
> use them.  This is getting too long, but as an example, if Social
> Security supports a middle-class accountant's parents,

this presumes that sufficient upward mobility exists for the child of
"worker" parents to become accountants, otherwise how do we get from the
working class to the middle class?


> then he doesn't
> have to, and he has more disposable income for his own use.  Lots of
> day care is provided in Europe at public expense.  Who uses it?  The
> poor?  No.  Two-income families--yuppies!

This presumes that there is no grouping between the yuppies and the poor.
Certainly, the yuppies have their hand in the public till to a much larger
extent than anyone else, but does not the extension of "public" funding
spreads to others also?
I think the basic question is why are there "poor" in a welfare state? is
it because the "yuppies" hog the public funding or because the poor just
don't have sufficient work ethic for even minimal upward mobility? (I know
there are exceptional circumstances!)
> This is a bit oversimple, but I really am reluctant to extend my
> remarks.  Any questions?

> Class dismissed!
> >
Soli Deo Gloria, Jeliko. (In this case Moricka)

Eva Durant writes:

> Please spell out for me, which of the human standards of behaviour are
> exclusively Christian.

Who has made that claim?

--Greg

marc horchler writes

>             There is no such a thing as MORALITY...


Remind me to count the silverware after you visit.  :-)

--Greg

In reply to your message of "Thu, 08 Sep 94 20: 38:33 CDT."
             >
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 94 10:05:22 -0700
From: 

Charles writes:

> Is the central purpose of Christianity to promote the good life?
> [...]
> But Christianity isn't centrally about moral codes, is it?

If you can, will you please tell us what it is centrally about?


The best I can do is to quote Luther's Small Catechism:

                        ***
Why is the Church called the "Christian" Church?

        It is called the *Christian Church* because it is *built
upon Christ*, its one and only Foundation.

Where is this holy Christian Church to be found?

        This holy Christian Church is to be found *wherever the
Gospel is in use*;...
                        ***

Which makes me suspect that Luther thought the use of the Gospel
is what is central.

--Greg

In reply to your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 94 13: 44:22 BST."
             >
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 94 09:56:43 -0700
From: 

> So. Those people who live "good" life, do not need religion.
> They can learn from other people, who also live "good" life.
> Don't you think? Eva Durant

Yes, by golly, and if they start an institution which relies on a bit
of faith in the goodness of humanity, or perhaps that goodness can be
taught, or that a good life is possible, then we have a church, don't I think.

--Greg

"Gloria Steinem" writes

> Ironically...the major beneficiaries of the welfare state
> are the middle classes,
> because of who tends to know about the services and who chooses to
> use them...

There are those who believe that we [USA] continue to have a welfare
state only because "the major beneficiaries of the welfare state are
the middle classes".  That is, if entitlement spending was not targetted
at the middle class, it would have been cut long, long ago.

--Greg

On Fri, 9 Sep 1994 14:36:58 GMT JELIKO said:
>Gloria Steinem writes:
>
--Well, actually, it's Charles.  Gloria was left over from a posting
on another network where it made sense!

>> >>Further, the welfare state is basically a capitalist creation.
>> >
>> >Without too much carrying on, can you explain why, and how?

--Jeliko, Japan does not belong to this group.  The welfare state did
not develop there in the 18th and 19th century.  Japan's great industrial
progress is post-Second World War, and it does not have an advanced
welfare state.

>to this group, also I would not classify France as a Protestant state and
>neither would Austria and Belgium belong to the Protestant grouping. So, it

--I didn't include Belgium or Austria.  France was included as an advanced
industrial state in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Although not Protestant,
it has developed a welfare state.  But it was not one of the early ones as
were Germany, England, and Sweden.  I told Paul that an explanation couldn't
be done briefly, since one would have to note the exceptions and account for
them.

>may not be a solely religion based initiation of activity. Do you really
>feel that work ethic and social responsibility can be directly tied to
>religion?
>
--No, and neither did Max Weber.  He coined the term "Protestant Ethic,"
and discussed its limitations.  In an earlier posting, I included a
lengthy quote from Weber to the effect that Protestantism wasn't a cause
for the development of North European capitalism.  Economic and political
factors accounted for it.  Weber's point was that the idea of work as
a calling (as religious people are often said to be called to a religion)
was merely a contributing factor.  Where you find people who regard work
with religious devotion, the boss makes more money.


>> All have been among the largest producers
>> of goods and services since the Industrial Revolution.  All are
>> basically capitalist (I don't usually use that word and Adam Smith
>> never used it) countries.  The welfare state represents a political
>> bargain between the entrepreneurial class and the working class.  It's
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is this perhaps a shift away from the beginnings of the "capitalist" class
>from mercantilist origins to those who had "worker" origins? I am also
>puzzled by the shift from the "working" class here to the later used
>"middle" class as being identical. IMHO, the whole marxist theory went out
>the window, when the class he called "workers" became a significant
>purchasing class. Why exploit someone by not paying him enough if then he
>can't buy your or your customers pruduct?

--Reread my posting.  I never said that working class and middle class
were identical.  As for mercantilism, it was long gone before industriali-
zation.  As for Marx, I don't think much of him.  There never was an
industrial "proletariat" and the notion that one needs poverty in
capitalistic systems in order to assure a supply of cheap labor is rot.
You can't replace a computer programmer with the average poor person.
Marx's analysis was based on the smokestack economy of the 19th century,
and only looked attractive then.
>
>this presumes that sufficient upward mobility exists for the child of
>"worker" parents to become accountants, otherwise how do we get from the
>working class to the middle class?
>
--Sure.  That's how it's done.  My grandfather was a dirt farmer, my
father worked in a factory, and I'm a university professor.

>This presumes that there is no grouping between the yuppies and the poor.
>Certainly, the yuppies have their hand in the public till to a much larger
>extent than anyone else, but does not the extension of "public" funding
>spreads to others also?

--Not as much as one might think.  I can give you several references to the
effect that the redistributionary aspects of the welfare state don't
redistribute from rich to poor, but within social class.  Even in Sweden,
benefits tend to flow upwards, since they are tied to one's employment.

>I think the basic question is why are there "poor" in a welfare state?

--I just happen to be working on an article that deals with that question.
Briefly, my answser is that the welfare state wasn't designed to aid the
poor.  It is, as I said, a capitalist creation to keep employed people
happy, since they get the major benefit.  For example, you can only
get Social Security if you have a work record.  The chronic poor don't
have work records.  They get small means-tested benefits in all welfare
states just like they got before there was a welfare state.

 is
>it because the "yuppies" hog the public funding or because the poor just
>don't have sufficient work ethic for even minimal upward mobility?

--It isn't a question of yuppies hogging public benefits.  The benefits
go to working people, which includes the traditional working class and now
includes a substantial white-collar lower middle class.  Again, one can
only get Unemployment Insurance if one has a work record.  One only retires
on Social Security if one has worked and paid into the system.  The poor
don't get these things.  Some of the poor are simply feckless and there's
damn all one can do about that.  Some, however, lack training and
opportunity.  When they are well motivated and can get training and a
job, they move upward.  Work is still the best anti-poverty program
around and always will be.

On Fri, 9 Sep 1994 10:05:42 -0700 > said:
>
>> Ironically...the major beneficiaries of the welfare state
>> are the middle classes,
>> because of who tends to know about the services and who chooses to
>> use them...
>
>There are those who believe that we [USA] continue to have a welfare
>state only because "the major beneficiaries of the welfare state are
>the middle classes".  That is, if entitlement spending was not targetted
>at the middle class, it would have been cut long, long ago.
>
--Exactly!  But the same can be said of other welfare states, many of
whom have cut entitlements, including Germany, Sweden, and the U.K.
Some Europeans have figured out that the money being used to benefit
them is THEIR money which they could spend without passing it through
the government first.

Charles writes:

> [Welfare state] benefits
> go to working people, which includes the traditional working class and now
> includes a substantial white-collar lower middle class....The poor
> don't get these [employment-based] things.

Could you, in rough terms, give an idea as to what percentage of "welfare-state
"
spending does go to the "poor"?

I'd also be interested in a copy of your paper, or a pointer to it;
please, and if you don't mind.

--Greg

On Fri, 9 Sep 1994 12:12:26 -0700 > said:
>
>Could you, in rough terms, give an idea as to what percentage of
>"welfare-state"
>spending does go to the "poor"?
>
--About 6.5 cents of your tax dollar.  Most goes to doctors and hospitals
for Medicaid.  AFDC mothers only get their hands on about 1% of each
tax dollar.  I don't expect you to believe this, since the media has
said that from 40 to 60% of the federal budget goes to welfare.  It
does if you are willing to count all federal and state contributions to
education, medical care of veterans, and a whole batch of other things.


>I'd also be interested in a copy of your paper, or a pointer to it;
>please, and if you don't mind.
>
--It hasn't been submitted for publication yet.  I'll be glad to send
you a list of my stuff that is in print, but I suggest that you request
it off the list, since only one paper has to do with Hungary.  I'm
very sensitive to those who say that my postings have little to do with
Hungary.  I'm sorry, but people keep asking me questions.  Maybe those
who want to argue with me personally could contact me off list.  I
do not wish to offend the Hungarians on the list.  I like them, and I
wouldn't offend them for the world.

Charles

Kedves Olvasoink technikai okok miatt a mai szam csak a legfontosabbakat
tartalmazza.
A POTKOLTSEGVETES vitaja varhatoan a szept. 19-20-i ulesen kerul napirendre.
IX. 27 -en Horn Gyula 60 perces beszedet tervezi a Tisztelt Haz.
IX. 10 -en parlamenti kuldottseg utazik Berlinbe ahol beszedet mond a haz elnok
e az 5 eves evfordulo kapcsan.
Tisztel olvasoinktol elnezest kerunk a technikai hibaert, de egyetlen eszkozunk
 meghibasodasa miatt nem tudtunk a helyszinrol a szokott modon megjelenni.
udv. Dr ORCZAN Zsolt