Tweet
Originally posted by C.O.Jones:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
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. </font>[/QUOTE]We are dealing with CONCEPTS here people, I'm finding it crazy that no one seems to understand. Every detail can't be "proven" every miniscule portion can't be driven by personal views here. The concept says this, very easily-the more you provide, the less people desire.....kinda simple. This was an EXAMPLE (gotdamit!!!!) you can't pull from a statement what you choose without extracting ALL of it's intentions.
As a CONCEPT (most governmental plans HAVE to be)it applies to the masses of situations, true there are some people who lie in the .05 percent of these situations. If you have ever taken Differential Statistics you know that in every group statistic there are portions that lie within the .05 lower and .05 higher that you cannot account for..............my point? There are some people who JUST WON'T FUGGIN WORK!!!! I know this, and there are some people who had life throw them situations that NO ONE on this board could conceive.....high and low .05. As a governing body, THEY (not you and you bias) are responsible for accounting for ALL of these situations, this means some good will get ****ED and some bad will get presents. You have to know this when dealing with an entire society.
Approaching Legendary Status
Comment