The truth about welfare

[95fbirdkid]

This will be my last post in this thread since its obvious this is going nowhere.

Here are two options that I think would be good revisions on the welfare program.

1)Make it optional, only those who pay can ever recieve welfare. Since I myself would be to ashamed with my faliure to ever recieve a welfare check, I wouldnt have to pay for other peoples faliures.

2)In order for anyone to recieve welfare they must first legaly change their name to "Worthless Burden on Society", if they are still on welfare after a year, they must get their new name tatooed on their forhead.

You can always sell your land, there will always be someone to buy it, mabey you wont get what you feel its worth, but if your in a position where your mooching off the rest of society, you have no place to complain.

[Red V6 Raider]

95fbirdkid, you must have no experience in the world. You'll see how things are someday. Getting laid off does not make you worthless or a failure. Getting unemployment checks to maintain while you find another similar job is what makes sense. Not to go get a job at McDonalds making $6/hr so you can keep your pride?

[95fbirdkid]

This will be my last post in this thread since its obvious this is going nowhere.

ok, i lied.

I'm not talking about getting an unemploymentcheck for 6 months after loosing your job, i'm talking about collecting welfare.


My taxes pay for your welfare check, not your unemployment check

[MTMike]

Mach - I live in one of the most rural parts of the country, and in small towns, i've seen guys begging for dimes behind a Burger King that has a reader board that says "Now Hiring: Starting $6.15/hr All shfits avail" There are jobs everywhere you look, even in po-ducnk rural areas. yeah, they're crap job, scrubbing toilets or flipping burgers or cleaning up horse stalls.

If you live in a town with 200 people and the 4 jobs at the only grocery store/tire care/bar are already filled, MOVE! It's not my fault you choose to live in an area like that, thus I shouldn't have to pay for you to live there.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE on welfare doesn't need it. But there are a lot of people who would rather sit on their *** than work, and welfare allows that.

Maybe if we weren't taxes out our asses to fund welfare, more americans would be more charitable and help people in need willingly. there's a thought!

[Everglades W68]

MTMike, well said.

I'd like to add an observation. As a Junior Achievement volunteer, I've done some presentations to students in various schools about the importance of getting a decent education.

One of the things that always struck me was that many of the drop outs were making rational economic decisions. They knew that they could qualify for Section 8 housing, they knew the ins and outs of getting food stamps, they knew the requirements for getting medical and child care, they knew the time periods and limits for getting other forms of assistance. They would look at me and say, "Now you want me to mess this up and have to work?"

Why indeed?

It is not easy; the so-called "safety net" can never be adequate. But often times, we have made the programs such that it makes no sense to get away from the safety net.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

I would gladly pay for these people to have welfare as long as they get themselves STERILIZED. If welfarees get to have money...they should not get more because they have more kids.

[imported_admin]

There are some interesting replies here. Everyone keeps bringing moral obligations and work ethics into the picture--comments about personal responsibility, etc. That holds true on an individual level but not to society as a whole. My post was entirely on the grander scale. I'm not talking about you or the one guy on the corner in the 'hood--I'm talking about statistics and big numbers.

Remember that money flows around and around in a big circle. You pay taxes, some of that tax money goes to a welfare recipient, that welfare recipient then spends it on your company's products, your company pays your paycheck partially from dollars earned from said welfare recipient, some of those dollars go back into taxes again. The money isn't "burned" or destroyed. It is just circulated around again and again.

Along those lines, there really is no such thing as "wasteful government spending". When NASA spends $550 on a toilet seat, citizens call it wasteful. Yet that money goes to an American space contractor whose earnings then increase. They pay that money as dividends to their shareholders, paychecks to their employees, and as investments into new capital--money going out to other companies (the providers of machinery, buildings, and equipment that the company uses). In short, that "wasteful government spending" BOOSTS the economy.

To those of you who think my posts are incorrect--take a course in basic macroeconomics. It is really very simple.

Regarding welfare recipients and their ability to get a job, the basic concept is this: every society will always have freeloaders. These people simply WILL NOT work. They would rather die in the street (or kill you in the street) than get a job. Those people are not the majority of welfare recipients but the negative effect of cutting their income altogether would more than make up for the people that would get jobs.

Originally posted by Shirl:
How bout' making them work? Gee, there's a concept :rolleyes:

And how would you go about doing that? Forcing them to work, eh? How? By threatening that they go to jail or get recruited into the army or something? Okay, Hitler. Or do you suggest we cut their welfare? This contradicts the assertion I just made. Some welfare recipients, if welfare were suddenly eliminated, would get fast food jobs, I'm sure. But not all. Those that won't work won't work whether they have welfare or not. Those people are essentially leeches that will always be present in every free market (non-totalitarian) society in history. So it then becomes a question of the lesser of two evils: pay them or pay for the consequences of their actions. If you say "I live in a small town, why should I have to pay for something someone does in the city" then I answer you this: you're still an American. I live in Virginia, why should I have to pay for troops and CIA agents that are protecting New York from being attacked again? You are a member of our society, you will pay our society's dues. Don't like it? Secede from the United States.

Those of you who talk all macho about buying a shotgun... get real. We're talking an entire society. So you would rather that everyone in this country has a shotgun than pay a small amount of your check each month to keep the country safe for your family and your children? (And yes, the actual dollars from your check that actually make it to welfare recipients is very, very small.)

You all need to think of the costs to our society as a whole. It costs our economy less to pay these people than it does to restrict them. Plus, think about it: what happens to these welfare checks? They get spent, right? On what? Partially on drugs maybe, but eventually they end up in the hands of respectable businesses again. The drug dealer spends his money on a new Cadillac Escalade. What happens then? GM's revenues go up = good for the economy.

What about when the ghetto whore pops out her fifth baby? Tax dollars pay for her hospital services, right? What then? The hospital system, the doctors, the nurses, etc. spend their money on whatever they spend it on--pumping that money right back into the economy again.

In short, we as a society can give free money to people and as long as they spend it on American products and services, it boosts our gross domestic product.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Its all circular... money flows around and around in our economy constantly. So some people don't deserve it... well, it ends up coming back to you anyway. That's the nature of the economy.

If you think eliminating welfare is such a great idea, let me ask you this: why hasn't it been done yet? Why do economists and politicians all agree that welfare is necessary in any free market society? If killing welfare were such a great idea, don't you think it would have been done already? Oh that's right, you know better than the civilized world's leaders... :rolleyes:

Welfare is not a social issue. It is not about morals or work ethic or personal responsibility. It is about economics. It is about minimizing the economic burden that some members of our society will put on the rest of our society. Never forget that money always has and always will rule this world.

[ August 18, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Stefan ]

[95fbirdkid]

My post was entirely on the grander scale. I'm not talking about you or the one guy on the corner in the 'hood--I'm talking about statistics and big numbers.

But these stats and big numbers are made of individuals

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
But these stats and big numbers are made of individuals

Yes, and you're using adverse selection. You're using one BAD EXAMPLE that does not represent the larger population as a whole. As an example, regarding your outrageous statements about savings, the average American household saves 8% of the income--and that includes the richest of the rich that save/invest millions upon millions every year. The "average" middle class American household saves much less than that. Say what you want about "well, I do such-and-such", you do not represent the masses.

[Turbo V6 Camaro]

You all need to think of the costs to our society as a whole. It costs our economy less to pay these people than it does to restrict them. Plus, think about it: what happens to these welfare checks? They get spent, right? On what? Partially on drugs maybe, but eventually they end up in the hands of respectable businesses again. The drug dealer spends his money on a new Cadillac Escalade. What happens then? GM's revenues go up = good for the economy.

BUT what about all the people he sold those drugs to? some will OD, some may shoot someone, some just have fun, some DRIVE LIKE A FREAKING REATARD, a few go to rehab this cost money,
eaither way they choose what if it was YOUR kid, that OD, or got shot, did the shooting, had fun high, killed someone while driving HIGH ON THE HOG, or wores yet was the one that got killed buy a high driver? would it be ok because it helped the econmy becuase a car was bought with drug money. from what i undstand from what you said, it would be ok, the drug dealer should get a prize b/c he was only trying to help the stock market. I guess monye REALLY is more important to you then. thats kinda sad.......

yeah right you would be screaming at the school asking were the hell he got the drugs or the person driving got them. you would be suing for as much as you get out of them. and starting a wacth program yadda yadda yadda...

What about when the ghetto whore pops out her fifth baby? Tax dollars pay for her hospital services, right? What then? The hospital system, the doctors, the nurses, etc. spend their money on whatever they spend it on--pumping that money right back into the economy again.

you forgot about the cost of the goverment rasing those kids, whos goign to apy for there care?child homes are not cheap to run, how ****ed up that kid life could from the mom doing drugs and the gov putting out aid to help them with med bills. yea hthe doctor get some of it back. IT DONT MAKE IT RIGHT

n short, we as a society can give free money to people and as long as they spend it on American products and services, it boosts our gross domestic product.

if you got only USA stuff you starve to death before you had a chance to buy anything

[Turbo V6 Camaro]

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Its all circular... money flows around and around in our economy constantly. So some people don't deserve it... well, it ends up coming back to you anyway. That's the nature of the economy.

rich ar egetting more wealthy and poor and getting poorer STILL (just seen it on the news.) tell bills gates to empy his savings and al the other richeys do the same

If you think eliminating welfare is such a great idea, let me ask you this: why hasn't it been done yet? Why do economists and politicians all agree that welfare is necessary in any free market society? If killing welfare were such a great idea, don't you think it would have been done already? Oh that's right, you know better than the civilized world's leaders...

last i knew you could only stay on welfare for 2 yars y have some been on it for 5,6,7,8

Welfare is not a social issue. It is not about morals or work ethic or personal responsibility. It is about economics. It is about minimizing the economic burden that some members of our society will put on the rest of our society. Never forget that money always has and always will rule this world.

why do welfair poeple bring in more money then a retired person that paid SS there hole WORKING LIFE and still can't live on that? my grandma retired from GM and that and the SS is barly making it...... yet the family down the street on wellfair can have take vactions ect. good thing my grandma save some of the HARD EARNED MONEY. :rolleyes:

[Turbo V6 Camaro]

just to clarify wlfair has good reason but they need to crack donw on poeple

i had a family on walfair, he lost his job and was working odds an ends with the welfare checks to make ends meet till he landed a great paying job in his skill, time welfair used 10 months.

that what is was ment for, not freaking boost the econmy with drug money :rolleyes:

it does keep the ecomy going yes but in most of the ways its used i think it hurts it....

your thinking well if someone died then the funeral cost put money into poepls hands.... ok yes BUT if say the person didn't die maybe the family would have used the $7000 to send them to school/send them selve to school go to school and make MORE money and that would help the econmy more in the long run..... not only that the dead person stops paying taxes when they die..... and say that was the familys only child they now don't get the great tax breaks there for less monye in there pocket and no longer have a child do you think they can go to school/spend money on things or even think they would want to? so what better the $7000 funeral or the $13K per year for 4 years of school (appox cost lol)

so you have 2 poeple paying taxs in the long run. insead of 1 dead, and one in jail sucking up funds

[ August 18, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: viper04af ]

[imported_admin]

As a whole your statements are not correct. Deaths due to drugs vs. actual use of drugs is miniscule. That's just politicians trying to demonize drug dealers and making it sound like anyone who ever picks up a crackpipe is doomed. Remember, macro vs. micro. I used the drug example as an illustration that even ill-gotten gains still end up getting pumped back into the economy. Okay, bad example maybe, but the principle is the same.

This exact same argument could be used against all manner of other government spending. "Oh no, the government is so wasteful". Well, the government makes up 30% of the United States gross domestic product. That money gets paid right back to the businesses that supply it. Government spending is not "burned" money--it all comes back. Whether its given to a welfare recipient or a defense contractor matters not--it still gets pumped right back in and is therefore not necessarily a bad thing. If all taxes were eliminated and all government services ceased, citizens would not see an increase in their take-home pay... because even though they paid say 30% of their income in taxes, 30% of their employer's income came from the government, so they would net out even.

[C.O.Jones]

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.

While this looks like a good argument it flawed at the core:
1) Most people on welfare are crime free. I take this to be a falsse statement. Do you have any demographics to back this up?
2) By paying people money we ensure that they don't turn to crime? Ok, so how does this explain unemployment? If you lose your job you turn to crime, and this is why there is unemployment?

By making general statements this argument sounds good, but that is based on many assumptions that you have no evidence to back up, or even possibly support.

[pontiac nino]

I love government cheese............and peanut butter. [img]smile.gif[/img]