The truth about welfare

[imported_admin]

I overheard a funny thing on a smoke break the other day... some coworkers complaining about their taxes and the usual story "I wish my money wasn't going to crack whores in the ghetto who plop out babies", yada yada. I felt the urge to debate the issue and smack them down so I did.

In finance, there is a saying:

"Anything you do will cost you money, including doing nothing. And doing nothing often costs more."

In government, this statement holds absolutely true when applied to welfare recipients.

Let's say this year out of all the tax money you paid, $500 of it went to the stereotype welfare recipient in the 'hood. The crackhead family has a little apartment and the kids don't have any future but their criminal records are minor. They more or less keep to themselves--as long as you don't drive into the ghetto, they don't bother you any.

Now let's suppose you cut that $500 altogether. You get to keep that money, right? Wrong.

Welfare keeps these people relatively crime-free. Cut their only source of income and they will turn to crime even more than they already do. Muggings, drug dealings, carjackings, etc. will all increase. You'll have to hire more cops to police the area. The risk of your car getting stolen increases. Many former welfare recipients will end up in our already overpopulated prisons and we'll have to spend billions building bigger and better facilities nationwide.

Net result? Now that you've "saved" $500 by not paying it to the welfare recipients, you're spending $1000 more on law enforcement. Doing nothing (cutting welfare) costs more.

In every society there will always be the bottom feeders that suck up off everyone else. It is human nature. Doing something about them costs less than doing nothing.

[Turbo V6 Camaro]

good point

I would like to add something.
many beggers bring in up to 14K a year. i seen one come a store in nice clothes and asked for a job App. they new he was homeless and wouldn't even give him a app. now hes not costing poeple any money, why did they have to be like that?

[chas]

but perhaps welfare could be different instead of a handout. the right answer cant be "let them live in their own little island".

[Shirl]

How bout' making them work? Gee, there's a concept :rolleyes: I'm sick of seeing a 1/3 of my paycheck gone before I even get to cash it. Welfare is b*llsh*t. In this day and age people should be working for money not looking for free handouts. One of my family members is legitimately handicap and she doesn't get a g*dd*mn dime and I see these sc*mb*gs that are fully capable of working doing nothing except making babies.... The working class suffers as usual. If you are hard-working and have made yourself successful, you'll suffer more because the goverment wants a piece of EVERYTHING you have so they can "give it away".

[sac2165]

I'd rather put my $500 towards locking people up & paying for guards to watch 'em, than paying for a free-loading lifestyle.

[VaeVictus]

I agree. This argument has no validity. We are not a socialist nation, and frankly I could care less about a group of people who do not want to work. I'd rather spend my money on policing these people myself. If you want a handout, you have to earn. Prove you are trying to get employed, afterwards, tough luck buddy.

[Kaoz]

This argument only applies to a certain percentage of people. I live in a quiet little town in Vermont, no crime to speak of, why should *I* pay for welfare? how does it benefit ME?

[Johnny Ray]

Originally posted by Stefan:
I overheard a funny thing on a smoke break the other day... some coworkers complaining about their taxes and the usual story "I wish my money wasn't going to crack whores in the ghetto who plop out babies", yada yada. I felt the urge to debate the issue and smack them down so I did.

In finance, there is a saying:

"Anything you do will cost you money, including doing nothing. And doing nothing often costs more."

In government, this statement holds absolutely true when applied to welfare recipients.

Let's say this year out of all the tax money you paid, $500 of it went to the stereotype welfare recipient in the 'hood. The crackhead family has a little apartment and the kids don't have any future but their criminal records are minor. They more or less keep to themselves--as long as you don't drive into the ghetto, they don't bother you any.

Now let's suppose you cut that $500 altogether. You get to keep that money, right? Wrong.

Welfare keeps these people relatively crime-free. Cut their only source of income and they will turn to crime even more than they already do. Muggings, drug dealings, carjackings, etc. will all increase. You'll have to hire more cops to police the area. The risk of your car getting stolen increases. Many former welfare recipients will end up in our already overpopulated prisons and we'll have to spend billions building bigger and better facilities nationwide.

Net result? Now that you've "saved" $500 by not paying it to the welfare recipients, you're spending $1000 more on law enforcement. Doing nothing (cutting welfare) costs more.

In every society there will always be the bottom feeders that suck up off everyone else. It is human nature. Doing something about them costs less than doing nothing.

Thank you for enlightening me on this Stefan.

I will not complain about welfare after looking at it this way.

:cool:

[Shirl]

Spoken like a true recipient.... j/k Johnny Ray, love ya! :D

[LD]

wow that sounds alot like blackmail
give me free money or else I will mug you

[LD]

or is that extortion?
maybe blackmail is the wrong word
either way, it doesnt make welfare seem any better to me

[Machiavelli]

People who are out of work do not CHOOSE not to work. They can not be MADE to work either. There are lazy people but those are not the majority of welfare recipients. Once you understand these ideas, you'll understand why welfare exists.


Stefan, for the most part I agree with you on this one - however, youve said something that conflicts with this in the past few years - but Im glad to see you're coming around on this issue.

This and your comments about the ACLU makes me think you might be more liberal than me *gasp*

[AZ3.8Camaro]

I would rather spend the $500 on 12 gauge shells.
I could solve a lot of "problems" that way! :D

[95Batmobile]

I guess this would make sense if all people on welfare were criminals.

They must all be black.. all blacks are killers.

Or wait, no, hispanic.. all hispanics thieves.

Do I need to keep going?

[VaeVictus]

I understand people need help. There needs to be more oversight of what is done. To quickly make an assumption such as, "if we don't give them money they'll mug us etc" is foolish at best. Here is a word forgotten by you liberals, ACCOUNTABILITY, learn what it means, apply it to one's self, and see me in two weeks. Ever wonder why the democrats do so well with the "underprivelaged", they promise all of the social reforms, raise taxes, the money still never sees them, and the rest of us suffer along with them. No entitlement program ever goes to what it is supposed to. Higher taxes are never the answer in this case. Evaluate the wasteful government spending, stop sending aide to countries who despise us and start worrying about our own crumbling under decadence society we are living in. Children today are more concerned with Ludacris then learning, wearing their hats like a dumbass, pants halfway down their ***, and spinner rims. Listen to any kid speak, "I was like, you know, going you know, like over to my friends house, you know, and like, she was like, ummm, hey, lets order a pizza, and like a coke too." We need to spend more money on defense and education, plain and simple. We also need to hold ourselves responsible for our own lives, we want the government to leave us alone, at least until it comes down to hand me downs.