So.. at lunch today, a guy tried to convince me that welfare was...

[sleuth]

So.. at lunch today, a guy tried to convince me that a strong welfare system was necessary for national and/or state and/or local security, and thus, it was in the best interest of a Capitalist economy that welfare not be cut.

His reasoning was that cutting welfare would result in an increase in crime, mainly theft. He used the "French Revolution" as an example of what happens when you leave the poor to fend for themselves. In other words, if it happened in France, then it can happen here, and that's why we need welfare.

My only response that I could think of off the top of my head was that the increase in crime wouldn't happen if I was actually allowed to defend my property, i.e. abolishing laws that allow property owners to use firearms to defend themselves and their property without worry of going to jail themselves.

I admit, it wasn't a very strong response.

What would yours have been?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I admit, it wasn't a very strong response.

What would yours have been?

To not have lunch with Leftist Elitists.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I admit, it wasn't a very strong response.

What would yours have been?

Thats the only response.

If you're going to argue that if you don't give handouts to these useless waste-cases that crime will go up, then my response would be let me defend my property.

I actually take it as an affront that someone would continue to support giving MY money away because they lack the testicular fortitude to say no.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
To not have lunch with Leftist Elitists.

I didn't know he was a leftist elitist until we started talking about our tax refunds and what we were going to do with them.

 

[tlatchaw]

So . . . He's giving his back to pay for more social programs right? That's the socially responsible thing to do!

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
So . . . He's giving his back to pay for more social programs right? That's the socially responsible thing to do!

Actually the conversation steered towards flat taxes and national sales taxes, which he claims is still unfair to the poor because the poor have to use all their money for essentials and essentials cost the same for everyone.

Thus, taking any percentage of a poor's income, even if it is the same for the rich, is still going to hurt the poor person more.

My response was the standard: tell the poor person if he doesn't like it, then go out and improve his situation instead of waiting for the rich to do it for him.

 

[Tonio]

My wife used to work for Social Services. Most of her clients were good at playing the system for maximum benefit, such as juggling due dates on their electric bills and so forth. Too bad they wouldn't use that skill and ingenuity for getting and keeping jobs. I believe the welfare system encourages those attitudes.

There were some clients who truly needed the assistance, but they were far and few between. According to my wife, most of the people who really needed that type of assistance didn't qualify for it under the government's Byzantine rules.

One of my biggest complaints about welfare is that it helps convince white people like my father that they're right in thinking that all blacks are lazy. There are plenty of white people who play the aid system rather than working.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by sleuth14
Actually the conversation steered towards flat taxes and national sales taxes, which he claims is still unfair to the poor because the poor have to use all their money for essentials and essentials cost the same for everyone.

Thus, taking any percentage of a poor's income, even if it is the same for the rich, is still going to hurt the poor person more.

I partly agree with your friend. Why not something in between - a national sales tax, but food and clothing are exempt? Lots of states do this.

It's easy to say things like telling someone to improve their lot when you yourself have a good education. What about the 30-year old who has little education, no marketable skills, has a kid to raise, and has to deal with a past prison record, keeping them from lots of low paying but decent jobs?

Try to imagine what the hell you would do if tomorrow you lost your job and you were out of work for six months to a year? Yeah, you could flip burgers, but your family would lose the house. It ain't easy. I KNOW this, I was there and I have family members STILL there. One of my siblings cannot walk and can barely move. He is on disability. Tell HIM to improve his lot. Wouldn't it be better not to take his money, give him a break?

THAT being said, what your friend said about welfare is ridiculous. It's absurd that we should shovel money to the poor so they won't riot.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SamSpade
It's absurd that we should shovel money to the poor so they won't riot.

That's what the Dems have been using as foreign policy for years.

 

[Larry Gude]

"welfare" is an absolute...

...necessity for a successful free market society.

Our economy typically discourages monopoly and protected markets and ecourages innovation and excellence and open, free-er markets.

The inevitable symptoms that this works so well is that other nations start to develop middle classes that then aspire to property rights which leads to better standards of living including concern for the environment.

Other symptoms are losses of jobs domestically that have been 'shipped' overseas where it can be done as well or better and cheaper.

Our nation benefits from this in increased standards of living for all citizens and in terms of positive influence as desire for access to our markets encourages better behavior.

It is in our interest as a whole that we provide relief, education and help promote opportunities for economically displaced people here at home to move up to a better job when their old one is gone.

If we protect jobs at all costs, we fall behind as other nations do a better job anyway and we then lose entire companies and market expertise instead of being and integral part of progress.

A company might send a job to India to MAKE MORE money, not to lose it. If they are making more money, there is more money and all that money creates in terms of new jobs, taxes and everthing that goes with it to justify 'losing' bad jobs.

This is the general idea, not a hard and fast one size fits all situations rule.

 

[ylexot]

A welfare system is a good idea to help people who are "down on their luck". It should not be a system for people to live their lives on. I'd much rather spend money on a system that provides temporary financial assistance, child care, and adult education. Then people should be able to provide for themselves.

Notice I did not say welfare was necessary...it's not. The country did fine without one for many years and didn't fall apart. The difference was that neighbors and churches were the "welfare system" and help the people that were down on their luck. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

 

[Larry Gude]

yl...

...I hear you but pre-Great Society most people could and would do the vast majority of jobs or learn them readily. People were used to working with their hands, not keyboards.

Jobs go begging every day in this country that would have been snatched up in a minute 35 years ago. Hence illegal immigration has become almost the backbone of many industries.

Howard Dean represents an army of 30 year old white guys who lost $80,000 a year jobs with tech firms when the Clinton "Lie about your balance sheet" bubble burst.

We have a much greater sense of entitlement today than ever and it is a poltical powerhouse (witness Deans ascent) and it votes and it contributes.

Not very many of these guys are gonna come drive my truck for $15 an hour and work 14 hour days through srping.

 

[SOCIO]

Welfare is like methadone...you stand still and the gov keeps you just at the poverty line...Yea, it was designed to help people when they are down and when they get back up they won't need it...That works for people who didn't want to be on it in the first place. They do what they have to do to get off it becasue of the reputation that it has. For others, it's not a tool but a destination. But hey, can you really blame them? If you qualified for free stuff would you take it? ANd then when you get accustomed to living on $400/mo and then the gov strips you of your grant what do you do? Crime? probably. Work? Hopefully.

 

[tlatchaw]

People that work for their money naturally have a sense of pride and ownership of it. This then extends to the things that they buy with that money like homes. These then create communities of people that care about their neighborhoods.This is how we can fight urban decay.

Unfortunately there are those that will take without earning and politicians that will continue to buy their votes with more government spending. Then they lay about all day wishing that they had more and yet being unwilling (and in some cases taught to think that they are unable) to go out and earn it.

Both situations are circular, which would you rather have?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
politicians that will continue to buy their votes with more government spending.

In my wife's experience, it doesn't work that way. The welfare receipients she dealt with didn't vote and had zero interest in politics. In fact, they weren't aware of anything other than continuing their benefits. So any politicians who think they're buying the votes of welfare recipients are being sold lemons.

 

[FromTexas]

I agree with Larry's and Sam's statements.

I believe welfare is necessary but should be limited appropriately.
Abuse, fraud, etc... should be punished. We will never get rid of the need for welfare in a capitalist system, but we can make its use appropriate and efficient.

 

[SOCIO]

I have to agree with Tonio. In my experience as a Social Worker there is a very small percentage of welfare recipients who are registered to vote. One of the requirements of applying for benefits is signing voter reg forms. most are not registered and do not want to register. Many use the jury duty excuse, but in my opinion they just don't care. Can you blame them? Poor people have no political power (yet...). Unfortunately it's that same attitude that insures that they never will...Ooh blah dee Ooh blah dah...

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that to understand the welfare problem, one must first suspend any religious notions of humans being superior beings and realize that at our core we are just simple animals and are subject to the same feelings and behaviors as our lower-classed brethern. We all have a strong instinct for survival, and people survived for centuries before the first government without a need for welfare. As governments were formed, people have become more and more dependent on the government for matters of that are better handled as a group, such as law enforcement, defense, etc., which has been good. But as social spending has developed, some people have also become more and more dependent on the government for providing their basic survival needs... much like a stray dog will latch onto a new "owner" who is willing to feed it.

The biggest problem with the welfare system is that it is an entitlement system, meaning that the people who benefit from it are "entitled" to it... they do not have to do anything to earn it. Also, the benefits, while funded by the people, are provided by the government. This leads to the recipients viewing the government as the source of the benefits, not the working people paying the taxes. Lastly, since the workers are forced to pay the taxes, there is no feeling of "giving" on the part of the taxpayers.

You will always, always, be able to find people who are sure they would just perish if they lost their welfare benefits. They feel this way because over time they have become conditioned to feel about those checks much the same way as the stray dog sits at the back door waiting for scraps. They can completely justify to themselves that they deserve the money because it's the government's money, and that's not "real" money right?

Do we need a welfare system? Yes, but it should be there to help people when they need it. Our system has now become a well-ingrained way of life for a lot of people. I would suggest you direct your lunch mate to look at Singapore. They have one of the best welfare/workfare systems on Earth, and people must work for the state to get benefits. As they progress at their work they get less benefits from the state, and eventually the folks are supporting themselves. Also, since they have a very strong criminal justice system, there isn't a lot of crime.

People can live very well without welfare and without turning to crime, but they can't and won't do it in the entitlement environment that we have in the US.