NationStates Jolt Archive

Probably this issue has already been adressed here...if it has, i apologize. Still, do you believe that some american conservatives are right when they claim that Welfare and social security beget a long-term dependency from the poorer classes on State hand-outs? Do social security recipients get acustomed to a life of inactivity and feel entitled to abstain from job-hunting? Did the Great Society end up creating two Americas?

The actual Great Society program of the 1960s did indeed create a generation of indolent people whose offspring now view government housing, money, and benefits without having to work as a birthright - not a privilege or a helpmeet.

Met many of these people first hand. That, and concentrating them in huge housing projects was probably one of the major "unintended consequences" of the Democratic Party's central themes.

Ugh, not THIS shit again.

If there was no welfare, I'd've been dead years ago. We *need* it, no matter how much you people whine about "your" money being "taken" from you.

Does welfare encourage laziness? In some cases, yes.
Does desperation encourage crime? In some cases, yes.

Which one is worse?

Does welfare encourage laziness? In some cases, yes.
Does desperation encourage crime? In some cases, yes.

Which one is worse?

Crime, of course. However, you'll most likely get the "laziness is worse" answer.

Ugh, not THIS shit again.

If there was no welfare, I'd've been dead years ago. We *need* it, no matter how much you people whine about "your" money being "taken" from you.

Soem people need it, yes. But it's obvious to me through personal observation that multiple generations have been raised with the belief that the government owes them - permanently.

:headbang: It does. Any form of Socialism creates laziness and idleness. Why do you think President Clinton gave an ultimatum for people to get off the Welfare System? I don't even like Pres. Clinton, yet even I can appreciate that. It would also be due to note that a Welfare or Socialist State is prohibited and cannont function under our Constitution.

Soem people need it, yes. But it's obvious to me through personal observation that multiple generations have been raised with the belief that the government owes them - permanently.

Really... Well, the way I see it, multiple generations have been raised with the belief that everyone would be better off with all the poor people dead.

Is that how you like it?

France. Germany. England. Sweden. Austria. Canada.

--These-- are examples of countries with social welfare systems.

The United States is not.

:headbang: It does. Any form of Socialism creates laziness and idleness. Why do you think President Clinton gave an ultimatum for people to get off the Welfare System? I don't even like Pres. Clinton, yet even I can appreciate that. It would also be due to note that a Welfare or Socialist State is prohibited and cannont function under our Constitution.

Uh, he did that so people would be able to have good lives. Life on welfare isn't exactly peachy.

About the bolded part: No, no, and no. Just because you think that's right doesn't mean it is. Walk in my shoes for a year: Barely having enough food stamp money to get through each month, not being able to buy anything you really want, and not being able to work, because even a minimum wage job will get you kicked off welfare, regardless of weather that money can provide for your family or not.

There are some people who legitimately can't work. We should have a system in place to provide for them. Those that can work should have child care provided for them along with their welfare check so that they can go out and get free job training and search for work. Those who can work, but refuse to do so should be cut off from funds and their children, if any, placed in foster homes.

Welfare is good when it helps people through a tough time in their lives or provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. We should provide better services for welfare recipients to give them the resources to impprove their position in life. The problem is that many of the people on welfare can't find jobs that pay a living wage, so they'd rather stay on welfare and eat regularly than work at Walmart and starve. We need to slow down globalization and require employers to pay a living wage if we want to really tackle the welfare problem.

France. Germany. England. Sweden. Austria. Canada.

--These-- are examples of countries with social welfare systems.

The United States is not.

Exactly. Also note that those countries have drastically lower crime rates.

Ugh, not THIS shit again.

If there was no welfare, I'd've been dead years ago. We *need* it, no matter how much you people whine about "your" money being "taken" from you.
Actually, you´de be surprised to know i was a recipient of welfare in my own country for a number of years...europeans in general have a more positive view of the Welfare State... i was interested in getting the multiple american perspectives.

There are some people who legitimately can't work. We should have a system in place to provide for them. Those that can work should have child care provided for them along with their welfare check so that they can go out and get free job training and search for work. Those who can work, but refuse to do so should be cut off from funds and their children, if any, placed in foster homes.

Welfare is good when it helps people through a tough time in their lives or provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. We should provide better services for welfare recipients to give them the resources to impprove their position in life. The problem is that many of the people on welfare can't find jobs that pay a living wage, so they'd rather stay on welfare and eat regularly than work at Walmart and starve. We need to slow down globalization and require employers to pay a living wage if we want to really tackle the welfare problem.

Exactly. See, like I said earlier: If I went out to get a job to supplement the ridiculously low amount of money we get from welfare, the only job I'd be able to get is a service job (fast food, Wal-Mart, etc.). Even if my brother was working with me, we wouldn't earn enough to feed ourselves.

Probably this issue has already been adressed here...if it has, i apologize. Still, do you believe that some american conservatives are right when they claim that Welfare and social security beget a long-term dependency from the poorer classes on State hand-outs? Do social security recipients get acustomed to a life of inactivity and feel entitled to abstain from job-hunting? Did the Great Society end up creating two Americas?

so long as it allows an able-bodied and able-minded person to sit on his couch all day in perpetuity, living off the work of others... yes, it does.

Those who are not disabled should be given a limited amount of welfare (say, 2-3 months' worth) and then BAM, go get a job. You pull the welfare rug out from under them and let them starve for a week or so, they'll quickly find their work boots and get a job.

Exactly. See, like I said earlier: If I went out to get a job to supplement the ridiculously low amount of money we get from welfare, the only job I'd be able to get is a service job (fast food, Wal-Mart, etc.). Even if my brother was working with me, we wouldn't earn enough to feed ourselves.

My point is that the system is designed to trap you like that.

One wonders if the system could be better designed to provide education, and a true boost to getting you on your feet in a real job with real wages.

Currently, welfare seems to be a tar pit of enormous proportions. Once you fall in, you aren't getting out.

A welfare state doesn't lead to dependance on the state, it requires it.

Does welfare encourage laziness? In some cases, yes.
Does desperation encourage crime? In some cases, yes.

Which one is worse?

In both cases the individual does not make an attempt contribute to society while drawing the benefits of society, so they are stealing. The only difference is that socialism legalizes theft.

Exactly. See, like I said earlier: If I went out to get a job to supplement the ridiculously low amount of money we get from welfare, the only job I'd be able to get is a service job (fast food, Wal-Mart, etc.). Even if my brother was working with me, we wouldn't earn enough to feed ourselves.

So you are unemployed and have no intentions of finding employment?

What was the original question in this thread, again?

A welfare state doesn't lead to dependance on the state, it requires it.



In both cases the individual does not make an attempt contribute to society while drawing the benefits of society, so they are stealing. The only difference is that socialism legalizes theft.The first one is less violent and more moral than the first one. It's not "theft".

No matter how you set up a welfare system, there will be people who try to game the system. That's human nature. It's unavoidable. The best you can hope to do is catch those people and punish them.

However, the fact that some people try to exploit the system does not eliminate the need for the system in the first place. There are many people who legitimately need it.

So you have to ask yourself: Is the amount of fraud and deceit in the welfare system enough to justify trashing the entire system? Should the people who legitimately need it be left to their own meager resources simply because there are some deadbeats who abuse it?

We do need a better welfare system than the one we have. But having no system would not be a better system.

:rolleyes:

Does the Welfare State encourage poverty and idleness? The data says no.

The world's two foremost welfare/socialist states - Norway and Sweden, also top the charts in UN studies on human conditions. Norway is first with Sweden as second in Human development, and Norway and Sweden both have the lowest poverty of all nations in the world.

Which addresses poverty. What about idleness you say? Well, from the same source(UN Human development report, 2004 IIRC(sorry I don't have a link, it was a hardcopy)) Norway and Sweden both had GDP growth equal to or greater than that of the not-so-welfare-statish US. Norway even has a GDP per capita HIGHER than the US. So somebody's working, and doing it very well.

I'd say no. A welfare state in and of itself will not cause poverty nor idleness. I hope that answers your question. :)

Does the Welfare State encourage poverty and idleness? The data says no.

The world's two foremost welfare/socialist states - Norway and Sweden, also top the charts in UN studies on human conditions. Norway is first with Sweden as second in Human development, and Norway and Sweden both have the lowest poverty of all nations in the world.

Which addresses poverty. What about idleness you say? Well, from the same source(UN Human development report, 2004 IIRC(sorry I don't have a link, it was a hardcopy)) Norway and Sweden both had GDP growth equal to or greater than that of the not-so-welfare-statish US. Norway even has a GDP per capita HIGHER than the US. So somebody's working, and doing it very well.

I'd say no. A welfare state in and of itself will not cause poverty nor idleness. I hope that answers your question. :)


Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.

So you are unemployed and have no intentions of finding employment?

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said. Yeeeah.

I said, quite clearly, mind, that I *can't* get a job, because we'll (my family) be screwed if I do. The only job I can get is a service job, and that doesn't even pay enough to feed two of us.

Troll.

The first one is less violent and more moral than the first one. It's not "theft".

The first one is less violent only because the people consent to it.

And how can you take two situations where a person's property is forcefully taken from them and say that one is morally justified while the other is not?

Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.

'She', eh? :p

And, I do have an intention of getting out. I'm looking into a Marine Robotics job... It pays a lot, and all I've got to do is take 320 hours of their education & training course. $11,000 total, and I can get financial aid to pay for it.

The beauty part? The starting salary once you've completed their training course is $55,000.

The first one is less violent only because the people consent to it.

And how can you take two situations where a person's property is forcefully taken from them and say that one is morally justified while the other is not?

The difference I see in the US welfare system is that the government hands you help with one hand, saying, "we're here to help you" when the reality is that the conditions of granting you that help are chains to tie you to the ground - permanently.

The first one is less violent only because the people consent to it.

And how can you take two situations where a person's property is forcefully taken from them and say that one is morally justified while the other is not?

Oh, so money is "property" now, is it?

The government prints and circulates it. It's their money. Be thankful that they let you use it.

Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.
Of course some would argue that poor people remain poor just because they want too...then again, those people who say such things have cushy trust funds and never had to do a honest work day in their lives (no, im not trying to star a class war here ;)

'She', eh? :p

And, I do have an intention of getting out. I'm looking into a Marine Robotics job... It pays a lot, and all I've got to do is take 320 hours of their education & training course. $11,000 total, and I can get financial aid to pay for it.

The beauty part? The starting salary once you've completed their training course is $55,000.

Yes, I surmised you had an intention of getting out. But you have to admit, the whole system is designed to keep you there. Good luck.

Yes, I surmised you had an intention of getting out. But you have to admit, the whole system is designed to keep you there. Good luck.

Exactly.

You know, it would be a lot more effective if they let people work for a few months while staying on welfare, so they can get back on their feet. It just doesn't work like that, though...

...They cut you off the second they find out you've got a job, no matter how shitty the pay is.

The first one is less violent only because the people consent to it.

And how can you take two situations where a person's property is forcefully taken from them and say that one is morally justified while the other is not?Note that you just contradicted yourself?

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said. Yeeeah.

I said, quite clearly, mind, that I *can't* get a job, because we'll (my family) be screwed if I do. The only job I can get is a service job, and that doesn't even pay enough to feed two of us.

You acknowledge that you cannot get a job, meaning that you have lost any intentions on getting a job.

You state that you would be unable to get a job because you would lose the welfare that you are dependent on.

The original question asked whether welfare causes people to idle and dependent, and you have said that you are idle because you are dependent on your welfare.

Troll.

Watch yourself, this is a flame/flamebait, regardless of what forum rules you are trying to invoke.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said. Yeeeah.

I said, quite clearly, mind, that I *can't* get a job, because we'll (my family) be screwed if I do. The only job I can get is a service job, and that doesn't even pay enough to feed two of us.

Troll.

Hi Potaria, if you would not mind could you elaborate please?

how much do you get on welfare?
hwats a standard wage where you live?
Do welfare services there offer job schemes or training?
etc...

interested.

Exactly. Also note that those countries have drastically lower crime rates.

and drastically higher unemployment rates, and less robust economies

you are obviously educated... why not try to get a good job with benefits? You'll feel much better about yourself (and likely the world in general) when you start working.

You acknowledge that you cannot get a job, meaning that you have lost any intentions on getting a job.

You state that you would be unable to get a job because you would lose the welfare that you are dependent on.

The original question asked whether welfare causes people to idle and dependent, and you have said that you are idle because you are dependent on your welfare.



Watch yourself, this is a flame/flamebait, regardless of what forum rules you are trying to invoke.

1: Yeah, especially since I made a post about me looking into a Marine Robotics tech job. Nice going, arse.

2: Exactly. However, the Marine Robotics center would pay more than enough for me not to need welfare any longer.

3: Yet, you make it seem as if I'm willingly idle. I'm not, and you're just trying to make me look like a dickhead who's "stealing your money". You know what? Good, I'm glad I'm "taking" "your" money. You don't seem nice enough to deserve it.

Troll.

Exactly.

You know, it would be a lot more effective if they let people work for a few months while staying on welfare, so they can get back on their feet. It just doesn't work like that, though...

...They cut you off the second they find out you've got a job, no matter how shitty the pay is.

Probably the major difference between certain European models of "welfare" and the US model.

Europeans need to understand that facet of the US model.

Unfortunately, the whole idea behind the original Great Society program was to concentrate the poor in housing projects, a sort of "out of sight, out of mind" thing that would also assauge the guilt of some taxpayers. Concentrate the crime in one place. Make sure they stay there by placing ridiculous conditions on the payments.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.

Yes, that explains Norway... though Norway has been a wellfare state from before their (illgotten*) oil gains.

But waht about Sweden? No oil wealth there, just mobile phones, wood and weapons.

You could also have a look at my own home country, Denmark. Wellfare state, less poverty than the US, less crime than the US.

You cannot just go "Pfff, they have oil" and end it at that. That is discounting other countries that makes it work as well without the oil wealth.


*That oil is ours, OURS DAMMIT!!! The next minister we send to negotiate with you wily norwegians is going to be a tea-totaller ;)

The difference I see in the US welfare system is that the government hands you help with one hand, saying, "we're here to help you" when the reality is that the conditions of granting you that help are chains to tie you to the ground - permanently.

Like Potaria said, the government helps him survive, but under conditions that bar him from self-sufficience.

Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.

I don't deny the US gov's welfare policies need a major overhaul. I'd like to see the system dismantled and replaced with another one designed for efficiency and effectiveness from the beginning. Essentially make a new system out of whole cloth, designed to do it's job well and with a clear goal - minimize suffering while getting people out of poverty for good.

Norway and Sweden however do appear to have done something right. Thier system appears not only sustainable but suprisingly effective. Honestly I think many nations could take a page out of the Norway/Swedish handbook and learn a few things.

My point is that the system is designed to trap you like that.

One wonders if the system could be better designed to provide education, and a true boost to getting you on your feet in a real job with real wages.

Currently, welfare seems to be a tar pit of enormous proportions. Once you fall in, you aren't getting out.

so long as people think they're helpless, they won't get out. Half of the problem, at least, is mental.

The people on welfare are going to support it, and the people who have to supprot the welfare system will be against it.

Noone owes you anything in life. We should let Darwinism takes it's course. Don't breed it if you can't afford to feed it.

Hi Potaria, if you would not mind could you elaborate please?

how much do you get on welfare?
hwats a standard wage where you live?
Do welfare services there offer job schemes or training?
etc...

interested.

1: The three of us (me, my brother, and my dad) get a whopping $275 a month for food. That's all we get for welfare. I'm 5'10" and 152lbs, my brother's 6'1" and 207lbs, and my dad's 5'8" and 183lbs. Does that sound like enough money to you?

2: The average income per capita in Tomball is about $33,000. With my current level of education, though, I could only make minimum wage, and I wouldn't be able to work full-time. My brother can't get a job, either, because his university's financial aid program forbids it. My dad can't get a job of any sort, because he can't even stand for 15 minutes without getting severe leg pain (he also has gout from kidney problems).

3: No.

Oh, so money is "property" now, is it?

The government prints and circulates it. It's their money. Be thankful that they let you use it.

Money represents unspent labor, which is property. Of course you could lug around the chunk of a car door that you built and try and buy food with it.

The people on welfare are going to support it, and the people who have to supprot the welfare system will be against it.

Noone owes you anything in life. We should let Darwinism takes it's course. Don't breed it if you can't afford to feed it.

I'm glad there's a big ocean between us...

1: Yeah, especially since I made a post about me looking into a Marine Robotics tech job. Nice going, arse.

2: Exactly. However, the Marine Robotics center would pay more than enough for me not to need welfare any longer.

3: Yet, you make it seem as if I'm willingly idle. I'm not, and you're just trying to make me look like a dickhead who's "stealing your money". You know what? Good, I'm glad I'm "taking" "your" money. You don't seem nice enough to deserve it.

Troll.

...as long as you are able to work and are not working, regardless of motive, you are willfully idle. You are smart. I don't mind helping you, since you are more or less a good person (at least you speak like one) but cripes, man, doesn't the thought of others spending their hard-earned money to support you provide any motivation for you to find a good job?

Note that you just contradicted yourself?

People consent due to the threat of force, just like people consent to giving up their car when someone holds a gun to their head.

We should let Darwinism takes it's course. Don't breed it if you can't afford to feed it.I'm glad the Americans, British, and Soviets came and took the people that thought that way in Germany out of power.

Soem people need it, yes. But it's obvious to me through personal observation that multiple generations have been raised with the belief that the government owes them - permanently.
IF that is the case (and a number of you yanks seem to think so), then i would argue that its not a result simply of having A welfare state system, but down to the specific way YOUR welfare state system works.
here in Britain, and the continent, we've had quite an extensive welfare state system for many, many years - more extensive than yours it would seem, especially regarding healthcare - but we don't seem to have that problem you're describing.

my two cents is that the welfare state is absolutley necessary as a net for all people, ensuring a minimum quality of life in a capitalist system.

Currently, welfare seems to be a tar pit of enormous proportions. Once you fall in, you aren't getting out.
sounds kinda like poverty and the debt trap that the welfare state is helping you with in the first place...

Of course it leads to dependance on the Government. Want proof. Just look at a great majority of the posts here. Welfare and handouts from the Government are so ingrained that many people can't even comprehend the thought of someone other than the Government helping people out.

And don't hand me that, 'you barely eek out a living' crap. The woman I'm dating has a nicer apartment than I do, nicer furniture that I do, gets free food for her and her 2 year old, and free medical care. She also gets enough money to keep her SUV fully gassed, and full cable and internet services. She hasn't worked since she had her kid. And I make a pretty decent living.

...as long as you are able to work and are not working, regardless of motive, you are willfully idle. You are smart. I don't mind helping you, since you are more or less a good person (at least you speak like one) but cripes, man, doesn't the thought of others spending their hard-earned money to support you provide any motivation for you to find a good job?

Are you deaf (well, in this sense, you'd have to be blind)?

With my current level of education, all I can get is a minimum wage job. I'd be the only one able to work, because my brother's on a financial aid program for his university studies.

I wouldn't even make enough to feed the three of us every week. See, that's why I'm looking into that Marine Robotics tech job...

...Are you getting any of this?

I don't deny the US gov's welfare policies need a major overhaul. I'd like to see the system dismantled and replaced with another one designed for efficiency and effectiveness from the beginning. Essentially make a new system out of whole cloth, designed to do it's job well and with a clear goal - minimize suffering while getting people out of poverty for good.

Norway and Sweden however do appear to have done something right. Thier system appears not only sustainable but suprisingly effective. Honestly I think many nations could take a page out of the Norway/Swedish handbook and learn a few things.


There is a very clear political reason that the system in the US is designed the way it is. Keep in mind that it was designed by the Democratic Party of the 1960s.

The intended effect was to isolate and consolidate the poor in ghettos. Where they would be bound to stay in order to keep receiving their benefits. Where all the crime and other problems would be isolated as well. Makes policing easier. Keeps crime in the suburbs down. And, the added benefit for the Democrats is that it concentrates loyal voters who receive benefits in single districts. An effect that you can see to this day, with the blue areas of the map being strongly Democratic, and strongly concentrated in areas where people receive benefits. Can't afford to vote against your check.

And anyone who tries to leave the system is doing the equivalent of scaling a barbed wire fence.

But it's all covered up with the chocolate sauce and berries of, "we're helping the poor".

It's help, but with a terrible, terrible cost. The primary difference between the US model and the Norway/Sweden models is intent. The US designers, the Democratic party, had NO INTENTION of helping the poor. Just sweeping them into a corner where they could take political advantage of them.

1: The three of us (me, my brother, and my dad) get a whopping $275 a month for food. That's all we get for welfare. I'm 5'10" and 152lbs, my brother's 6'1" and 207lbs, and my dad's 5'8" and 183lbs. Does that sound like enough money to you?

2: The average income per capita in Tomball is about $33,000. With my current level of education, though, I could only make minimum wage, and I wouldn't be able to work full-time. My brother can't get a job, either, because his university's financial aid program forbids it. My dad can't get a job of any sort, because he can't even stand for 15 minutes without getting severe leg pain (he also has gout from kidney problems).

3: No.

sincere idea:

Has anyone in your family, mentioned above, looked into jobs you could work from your computer(s) at home?

People consent due to the threat of force, just like people consent to giving up their car when someone holds a gun to their head.It wasn't forcefully taken away. And it's not like people are being threatened with anything comparable to the consequences of an armed robbery if they don't pay their taxes.

I'm glad the Americans, British, and Soviets came and took the people that thought that way in Germany out of power.

you mean the people who made the film, Dasein Ohne Leben?

Oh, so money is "property" now, is it?

The government prints and circulates it. It's their money. Be thankful that they let you use it.
But money is property. It's equivalent to shares of stock in a way. One dollar is like one share of USA inc.

1: Yeah, especially since I made a post about me looking into a Marine Robotics tech job. Nice going, arse.

Nice of you to reveal that information after I made my post and then bitch at me for not taking it into consideration.

2: Exactly. However, the Marine Robotics center would pay more than enough for me not to need welfare any longer.

Good, I hope you get it.

3: Yet, you make it seem as if I'm willingly idle. I'm not, and you're just trying to make me look like a dickhead who's "stealing your money". You know what? Good, I'm glad I'm "taking" "your" money. You don't seem nice enough to deserve it.

I didn't say you are willfully idle, and I believe that the government is stealing my money, and that you are the recipient of it. And I have been nothing but gracious in this conversation even through your rising hostility.

Troll.

I am sorry you feel that way. Next time I respond to you I will flatter you with adulation for your viewpoints and agree with you in everyway.

sincere idea:

Has anyone in your family, mentioned above, looked into jobs you could work from your computer(s) at home?

Eh, this is the one, man. Of course, I won't be able to work from my house, but my sister's going to let me stay at her place (it's about three miles from the robotics center).

So, let me get this straight: Just because I'm on welfare, I MUST be willingly idle? Fuck that. I'm on welfare because my dad almost died in 1997, and it's been downhill since.

I hope you realise you're making an ass of yourself.

you mean the people who made the film, Dasein Ohne Leben?From the sound of it, I'm glad I never saw it.

The first one is less violent only because the people consent to it.

And how can you take two situations where a person's property is forcefully taken from them and say that one is morally justified while the other is not?

Why does this "taxation is theft" thing argument keep showing up? Anyway, as libertarians are fond of saying that people in jobs with low pay or terrible conditions are there of their own choice, I'll just say this: If you think taxation is theft, move to a country that doesn't tax you.

I don't agree that welfare systems are designed to trap anyone. They are designed to help people who temporarily are unable to support themselves. The number of people who abuse welfare by remaining on it long-term is usually very small, but are over-emphasised by people attacking welfare.

When people are trapped, as Potaria has described, it's because the government avoids paying whenever possible, often unfairly. Welfare should be cut once a person is fully supporting themselves, not earning pocket money. The meagre amount of money welfare gives is enough incentive for the vast majority of people to get a job when they have the opportunity.

Are you deaf (well, in this sense, you'd have to be blind)?

With my current level of education, all I can get is a minimum wage job. I'd be the only one able to work, because my brother's on a financial aid program for his university studies.

I wouldn't even make enough to feed the three of us every week. See, that's why I'm looking into that Marine Robotics tech job...

...Are you getting any of this?

here's what i'm getting, potaria:

a)You seem to have no qualms living off my hard work, which pisses me off, since you are able. You seem to think you have a right to filch from others. Thanks largely to the democrats who are after your vote, you do have a legal right to my money and the money of all other workers/earners.

b)You keep whining about your plight. Suck it up, go get a job, be a man and support your family. As long as you whine about how poor and hopeless you are, you will not better your situation.

I hate to sound like a hard ass but the government charity seems not to be lighting a fire under you to find work... so I guess it's up to angry welfare benefactors like me.

Instead of making excuses, only seeing your barriers to work, try finding ways over them... I am certain that there's a job out there made just for you, that would pay you adequately to support your family. I sincerely hope you find it... I wish you well. As long as you sit there gathering dust, you accomplish nothing.

Look for work, and work will find you, man! You can do it! (no, not Rob Schneider. hehe)

There is a very clear political reason that the system in the US is designed the way it is. Keep in mind that it was designed by the Democratic Party of the 1960s.

The intended effect was to isolate and consolidate the poor in ghettos. Where they would be bound to stay in order to keep receiving their benefits. Where all the crime and other problems would be isolated as well. Makes policing easier. Keeps crime in the suburbs down. And, the added benefit for the Democrats is that it concentrates loyal voters who receive benefits in single districts. An effect that you can see to this day, with the blue areas of the map being strongly Democratic, and strongly concentrated in areas where people receive benefits. Can't afford to vote against your check.

And anyone who tries to leave the system is doing the equivalent of scaling a barbed wire fence.

But it's all covered up with the chocolate sauce and berries of, "we're helping the poor".

It's help, but with a terrible, terrible cost. The primary difference between the US model and the Norway/Sweden models is intent. The US designers, the Democratic party, had NO INTENTION of helping the poor. Just sweeping them into a corner where they could take political advantage of them.
That's a rather cynical view. I think the current system is an example of trying to solve a problem by blindly throwing money at it more than an example of manipulating the population for political gain.

Nice of you to reveal that information after I made my post and then bitch at me for not taking it into consideration.

I'd already made myself clear on the issue. You're just pissed because I'm getting some of your precious green.

I didn't say you are willfully idle, and I believe that the government is stealing my money, and that you are the recipient of it. And I have been nothing but gracious in this conversation even through your rising hostility.

Gracious, eh? Why don't we just turn this whole thing into a bullshit fest, then?

I am sorry you feel that way. Next time I respond to you I will flatter you with adulation for your viewpoints and agree with you in everyway.

Whatever arouses you, dude.

Potaria, did you ever consider enlisting in the armed forces? It's what I did.

Not saying the military is for everyone. But it is a government work program of sorts.

The people on welfare are going to support it, and the people who have to supprot the welfare system will be against it.

Noone owes you anything in life. We should let Darwinism takes it's course. Don't breed it if you can't afford to feed it.
Personal responsibility is a good thing, but allowing children to starve because of the mistakes of their parents is not going to teach anyone anything. It's only going to breed a generation of desperate people who will be willing to break the law in order to get by.

If we really want to help people become responsible for themselves we need to ensure that job training and decent work are available to them and that they have the resources to take advantage of those opportunities. Resources like financial assistance to make ends meet during job training and the job search, public transportation, and quality child care.

another idea, Potaria:

Start selling drugs!

You don't have to report such employment or the money you make from it... which would allow you to stay on welfare until you have enough money stashed away to find more permanent, legal work.

hehe j/k (don't mean to be so hard on you... probably is coming out more cross than i mean it to be. I wish to inspire you, rather than yell at you. In this last post, i attempted to make you laugh)

here's what i'm getting, potaria:

a)You seem to have no qualms living off my hard work, which pisses me off, since you are able. You seem to think you have a right to filch from others. Thanks largely to the democrats who are after your vote, you do have a legal right to my money and the money of all other workers/earners.

b)You keep whining about your plight. Suck it up, go get a job, be a man and support your family. As long as you whine about how poor and hopeless you are, you will not better your situation.

I hate to sound like a hard ass but the government charity seems not to be lighting a fire under you to find work... so I guess it's up to angry welfare benefactors like me.

Instead of making excuses, only seeing your barriers to work, try finding ways over them... I am certain that there's a job out there made just for you, that would pay you adequately to support your family. I sincerely hope you find it... I wish you well. As long as you sit there gathering dust, you accomplish nothing.

Look for work, and work will find you, man! You can do it! (no, not Rob Schneider. hehe)

1: Nor do I, or will I, have any problem with people surviving off my work, once I get that work. A - Nobody should die just because of their unchosen position in life, and B - Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Don't start jumping to conclusions, here.

2: You're obviously blind. I'll say it again --- The only job I can get at the moment (until I graduate) is a minimum wage job, and that's not even enough to keep the three of us alive.

3: It's not that. They've trapped us, along with so many others. It's not our fault we can't get decent jobs to get us out of this shithole.

4: That's exactly what I'm doing, and that's exactly what I've said... Ugh, what is it with you people?

5: See above.

Oh, so money is "property" now, is it?

The government prints and circulates it. It's their money. Be thankful that they let you use it.

So I guess my work has no value, and the "government" just gives me an allotment for leaving my house every day rather than staying home?

Ooookayyyyy... :rolleyes:


And yes, Sierra is correct: the rules of welfare in the USA force women to have children out of wedlock to increase their allotment. Getting married is also grounds to kick them out of the system, and has produced generations of unwed poor mothers raising little gangsters. I have known some of them (the mothers and the gangsters).

Sierra's "cynical" viewpoint is one I came to on my own as well. And is another reason I left the Democratic party. Because I believe that they have the same attitudes towards the poor and towards minorities to this day. After all, this was the party that opposed civil rights reforms in the 1960's as well.

And we have spent $6 trillion since the "war on poverty" began in the 1960's. And we still have all the poor people. The only way you can get rid of the poor is by lowering the poverty level to $0, so that only those with negative money are poor.

Potaria, did you ever consider enlisting in the armed forces? It's what I did.

Not saying the military is for everyone. But it is a government work program of sorts.

Hahahaha... That would've seemed nice when I was 10. I'm not going to risk my life just yet... Or ever.

Potaria, seriously, i'm not angry, just frustrated for you.

BTHP (hope i got that right) had a good idea back there about joining the military. Military jobs can be tough, as you go where they tell you to go, but you may be able to stay where you are. I know that they pay good benefits -- all medical is paid for, for instance.

Potaria, seriously, i'm not angry, just frustrated for you.

BTHP (hope i got that right) had a good idea back there about joining the military. Military jobs can be tough, as you go where they tell you to go, but you may be able to stay where you are. I know that they pay good benefits -- all medical is paid for, for instance.

Yeah, well, I've been frustrated for seven-plus years.

Yeah, they sound good at first, but still, I'm not going to subject myself to that. Methinks a marine robotics job will be plenty good.

The only way you can get rid of the poor is by lowering the poverty level to $0, so that only those with negative money are poor.

Considering the rampant issuance of consumer credit in the US, many people in the US have negative money.

The poor in the US include a lot of people who make decent money, but so much of their money goes to debt service that they are essentially bondslaves to the bank.

It's why at the end of my last marriage, I declared bankruptcy, and have never taken out any credit or loans since (even though I get offers now). Your cash flow is better without credit.

There are two primary traps in the US: US welfare, and US consumer credit. If you're unlucky, or not careful, one will get you.

Hahahaha... That would've seemed nice when I was 10. I'm not going to risk my life just yet... Or ever.

Being an air traffic controller for the Air Force is hardly risky. Neither is being an electronics tech for aircraft maintenance.

Most of the tech jobs in the Air Force and Navy also pay for your college while you are in service - because those jobs require electrical engineering degrees.

It's not like you would be doing the job I did - serving as an infantryman in combat.

another idea, Potaria:

Start selling drugs!

You don't have to report such employment or the money you make from it... which would allow you to stay on welfare until you have enough money stashed away to find more permanent, legal work.

hehe j/k (don't mean to be so hard on you... probably is coming out more cross than i mean it to be. I wish to inspire you, rather than yell at you. In this last post, i attempted to make you laugh)
Unless you're willing to take big risks, for example have large ammounts of drugs on hand and cater to a large group of clients, you're not going to make a whole lot of money in the drug game. Also the inevitable lawyer bills take a big chunk out. Drugs aren't worth it. I know exactly one person who sells cocaine that makes a good living off of it. He only sells weight to other dealers.

Considering the rampant issuance of consumer credit in the US, many people in the US have negative money.

The poor in the US include a lot of people who make decent money, but so much of their money goes to debt service that they are essentially bondslaves to the bank.

It's why at the end of my last marriage, I declared bankruptcy, and have never taken out any credit or loans since (even though I get offers now). Your cash flow is better without credit.

There are two primary traps in the US: US welfare, and US consumer credit. If you're unlucky, or not careful, one will get you.

You are so right and very wise, Sierra. Wish I had heard this when I was just starting out working. The credit trap is way too seductive. :(

http://www.goarmy.com/nfindex.jsp

http://www.navy.com/

http://www.marines.com/

http://www.airforce.com/noflash.php

http://houston.jobs.topusajobs.com/

http://biz-whiz.com/

http://www.work-at-home.org/

http://www.monster.com/



(trying to help. hope one of these sites helps. good luck, man,)

here's another one... not sure if they have an office in Houston but might be worth checking out:

http://www.xo.com/about/careers/

The Brits have lower crime rates, not because they have a welfare system, but because they are not gun toting nutters like the Americans.

Unless you're willing to take big risks, for example have large ammounts of drugs on hand and cater to a large group of clients, you're not going to make a whole lot of money in the drug game. Also the inevitable lawyer bills take a big chunk out. Drugs aren't worth it. I know exactly one person who sells cocaine that makes a good living off of it. He only sells weight to other dealers.

hehe

The Brits have lower crime rates, not because they have a welfare system, but because they are not gun toting nutters like the Americans.What do guns and crime have to do with welfare?

The Brits have lower crime rates, not because they have a welfare system, but because they are not gun toting nutters like the Americans.

74 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon of any kind. (93 percent without a firearm).

So, the majority of violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault) has nothing to do with guns - or knives - or clubs.

89 percent of forcible rape is committed without a weapon in the US.

"Gun toting nutters" I presume is your term for legal gun owners in the US. Here in the US, a legal holder of a concealed weapons permit is less likely to be involved in crime than the illegal owner of a weapon. Wonder why? It's not because of the background check - 35 states make it easy to get a concealed weapons permit.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

and I quote from that source: "Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault."

Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.

Norway has a high GDP because of North Sea oil. If it weren't for the oil, Norway would not be able to afford to be a welfare state.

I have news for you Sierra... Sweden has no oil! And yet Sweden affords to be a welfare state...

You're failing to understand that welfare does not turn people lazy, otherwise how would countries like Sweden, Norway, or Finland (which also has no oil BTW) be so rich?

74 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon of any kind. (93 percent without a firearm).

So, the majority of violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault) has nothing to do with guns - or knives - or clubs.

89 percent of forcible rape is committed without a weapon in the US.

"Gun toting nutters" I presume is your term for legal gun owners in the US. Here in the US, a legal holder of a concealed weapons permit is less likely to be involved in crime than the illegal owner of a weapon. Wonder why? It's not because of the background check - 35 states make it easy to get a concealed weapons permit.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

and I quote from that source: "Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault."

...this does not mention all of the crimes that are prevented by firearms...

The answer to the original question is obviously yes. Where do you think all the bums were a century ago? That's correct, they had productive jobs and took care of themselves and their families. The people living now could do the same if the state didn't trap them first.

Does the Welfare State encourage poverty and idleness? The data says no.

The world's two foremost welfare/socialist states - Norway and Sweden, also top the charts in UN studies on human conditions. Norway is first with Sweden as second in Human development, and Norway and Sweden both have the lowest poverty of all nations in the world.

Which addresses poverty. What about idleness you say? Well, from the same source(UN Human development report, 2004 IIRC(sorry I don't have a link, it was a hardcopy)) Norway and Sweden both had GDP growth equal to or greater than that of the not-so-welfare-statish US. Norway even has a GDP per capita HIGHER than the US. So somebody's working, and doing it very well.

I'd say no. A welfare state in and of itself will not cause poverty nor idleness. I hope that answers your question. :)
And to those saying similar to the above: In Sweden about 75% of the people between 20 and 64 years of age have jobs. The rest have not. That means that each person working provides for about 2.3 people (himself, one child or retired and a third of one welfare recepient). No worker can provide for their family without help. It's probably the closest to Utopia you'll get, but that's just proof that Utopia can't exist.

I have news for you Sierra... Sweden has no oil! And yet Sweden affords to be a welfare state...

You're failing to understand that welfare does not turn people lazy, otherwise how would countries like Sweden, Norway, or Finland (which also has no oil BTW) be so rich?

Because the welfare system in the US is designed specifically to concentrate and trap the poor.

Quite unlike the welfare system in Norway and Sweden. They aren't designed the same way.

It all depends on how you design the system, and what your intentions were.

Potaria, I know you can do it. You're extremely bright, and intelligence goes a long way. You've got to use your intelligence and apply some work ethic (make it a project maybe) to find a job that you like (not necessary, but nice) that will pay you what you need to be paid.

Those links I posted are there to help... military options, work-at-home options/ideas, houston job site, monster (which will have a bunch of houston jobs as well), xo (i know XO has a shop in Dallas... not sure if they do in Houston... but they do not necessarily require a college degree, and all their jobs offer at least decent pay and decent benefits).

well.i can always share my experience with you folks...during college, i did the odd job, nothing definite...after i got my law degree, i tried to get a job in my own field, but the market in my country is quite literally overcrowded with lawyers and so had to resort to job-hunt in other areas...i started going to interviews for jobs that demanded less that a college degree, but when my prospective employers took a look at my resume, i would invariably get the answwer "you´re over qualified for the job". They didnt want to have to pay more because of my degree and risk having to look for another employee the moment i got a job more in keeping with my formal education...so, eventually, i went to an interview to work in a supermarket, and lied about my qualifications, saying i hadnt finished high school...well, aparently the interviewer was quite on the know about these kind of things, because he told me off, saying that i was far to much polite and articulate to not to have a college degree, so i was obviously lying!
So, i did try to find a job, but my college degree kept holding me back!! :p

I have news for you Sierra... Sweden has no oil! And yet Sweden affords to be a welfare state...

You're failing to understand that welfare does not turn people lazy, otherwise how would countries like Sweden, Norway, or Finland (which also has no oil BTW) be so rich?
Can I please trade my Swedish citizenship for your American one? You obviously prefer it here.;]

One of the two things that everyone should know about economics (and that all economists agree on) is that incentives matters. Or in other words, welfare makes people lazy.

Finally, some reasonably coherent, justifiable sentiments. Britain ought to dispense with much of its welfare state, omitting old age pensions, privatise health care utterly, once more making considerable exceptions for all over 60, and finally compel those degerate incompetants who so leech from a somewhat inadvisable system to actually earn a wage for themselves and their depraved myriad of children

The answer to the original question is obviously yes. Where do you think all the bums were a century ago? That's correct, they had productive jobs and took care of themselves and their families. The people living now could do the same if the state didn't trap them first.


LOL, you are certainly blue-eyed my friend. In the olden days, poor people were put in poor houses. There they were given a matt to sleep on in a barracks sort of environment, gruel to eat and rags to dress in. That way they were out of sight and mind. Just think of Emil and the poor folks home in the Astrid Lingren novels.

Please don't make sweeping, broad generalizations about things you obvoiusly know nothing of.

I also takes offence to the implicit statement that all wellfare recipients are bums.

[QUOTE=Potaria]1: snip
2:snip
3:snipQUOTE]

ouch :(

sorry to hear that.

Because the welfare system in the US is designed specifically to concentrate and trap the poor.

Quite unlike the welfare system in Norway and Sweden. They aren't designed the same way.

It all depends on how you design the system, and what your intentions were.

So the problem is not welfare. Actual welfare is a fair, effective way of eliminating the threat of extreme poverty.

The problem is the US welfare, that seems to have been designed as a ghettoization program.

So the problem is not welfare. Actual welfare is a fair, effective way of eliminating the threat of extreme poverty.

The problem is the US welfare, that seems to have been designed as a ghettoization program.


You win this round! Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

It was specifically designed by Democratic Party strategists as a means of lowering crime rates in the suburbs and business districts, as well as a means of providing a pool of loyal voters who would vote for their checks.

I'm glad the Americans, British, and Soviets came and took the people that thought that way in Germany out of power.

Liberal tactic #3, call someone a Nazi, no matter what the conversation is about. I haven't called for the extermination of anyone. The poor are doing ti to themselves. Look how many poor blacks and hispainc kids are killed each year in gang shootings. or gunned down during the comission of a crime. or rot away in prison.

They keep breeding, and you keep feeding them with my money. That'll make it all better. :rolleyes:

What they really need is a cork and some self restraint.

here in britain we have what is called a welfare state

this means everyone who works pays national insurance and gets free medical treatment.

there is money available for job seekers who have been unemployed for more then 6 weeks (not enough to live on in any meaningfull way)

there is also money for those who have disabilities ore are unable to work for medical reasons.

in wales there used to be a lot of heavy industry (mining and steel mainly) but this has since closed down. This means there are no jobs in these areas as there is no where to work (they were entirely one industry towns). They cannot move to places where there are jobs as they cannot buy housing there. They cannot buy housing as their own houses are worthless as no one wants to live there. so they are stuck in jobless areas. often they have horrific work related illnesses so couldn't work even if there was any. this means a large part of the population are being kept alive just through welfare.

so its very important in this country

You win this round! Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

It was specifically designed by Democratic Party strategists as a means of lowering crime rates in the suburbs and business districts, as well as a means of providing a pool of loyal voters who would vote for their checks.

I'm so happy right now, because I'm not American. I'd be pissed off if I had to choose between Democrats and Republicans...

The Brits have lower crime rates, not because they have a welfare system, but because they are not gun toting nutters like the Americans.

Open your eyes- more people are stabbed here than shot.

Liberal tactic #3, call someone a Nazi, no matter what the conversation is about. I haven't called for the extermination of anyone. The poor are doing ti to themselves. Look how many poor blacks and hispainc kids are killed each year in gang shootings. or gunned down during the comission of a crime. or rot away in prison.

Don't you know a lot of people are born with very few chances of succeeding? It's not darwinism, it's social injustice. What's wrong with pulling them out of poverty? No-one chooses the family they're born in...

Liberal tactic #4, put yourself in their place and be compassionate...

Don't you know a lot of people are born with very few chances of succeeding? It's not darwinism, it's social injustice. What's wrong with pulling them out of poverty? No-one chooses the family they're born in...

Liberal tactic #4, put yourself in their place and be compassionate...

I wish thee a lifetime supply of cookies

Liberal tactic #3, call someone a Nazi, no matter what the conversation is about. I haven't called for the extermination of anyone. The poor are doing ti to themselves. Look how many poor blacks and hispainc kids are killed each year in gang shootings. or gunned down during the comission of a crime. or rot away in prison.

They keep breeding, and you keep feeding them with my money. That'll make it all better. :rolleyes:

What they really need is a cork and some self restraint.

Yeah, look at those evil black women getting pregnant just so they can take your money and live like royalty on a few hundred bucks a month. :rolleyes:

Grow up.

1: The three of us (me, my brother, and my dad) get a whopping $275 a month for food. That's all we get for welfare. I'm 5'10" and 152lbs, my brother's 6'1" and 207lbs, and my dad's 5'8" and 183lbs. Does that sound like enough money to you?

2: The average income per capita in Tomball is about $33,000. With my current level of education, though, I could only make minimum wage, and I wouldn't be able to work full-time. My brother can't get a job, either, because his university's financial aid program forbids it. My dad can't get a job of any sort, because he can't even stand for 15 minutes without getting severe leg pain (he also has gout from kidney problems).

3: No.


I dont pretend I know what its like to be in your situation. Your father's illness-being the family breadwinner- must have been a terrible blow.

At the same time, I have never been unemployed one day since I was 16 yrs old. I always had a part time job, had many jobs off the books, too. Aside from my full time job, I worked nights in a restaurant, and mowed lawns and did other odd jobs on weekends for cash.
I wouldnt know how or where to obtain welfare, let alone unemployment. Unemployment being insurance I have paid into steadily for 20 years now.

I dont dwell on the welfare problem enough to resent it. I like to be optimistic and say to myself that my hard earned dollars might be feeding the multiple children of some poor single mother who has no family to turn to and whose boyfriend's simply take advantage of her when its suits them.
I also dont resent that you and your family are obtaining assistance from money I pay out.

It does sound like you and your brother are able bodied young men. I would like to see a system that helps train/educate you in something appropriate and helps guide you to a meaningful employment that could help you support yourself and your family.
I have a feeling there are many on welfare that would rather wind up in a full time job with decent benefits and a future, rather than wait for a small check each month.
Welfare is supposed to be temporary-giving people a chance to take a breath, weigh there options and make something work.

I was sick of one job I had years ago. I quit it and took a job that stared at minimum wage. inside of 6 months of breaking my ass and going above and beyond my duties, I was made management and earned significantly more than I started with. I had that goal going in-if I didnt think it was reasonably possible, I would have moved on.

My mother did welfare after my old man disappeared.

My sister and I have never used welfare and probably never will.....

There are some people who legitimately can't work. We should have a system in place to provide for them. Those that can work should have child care provided for them along with their welfare check so that they can go out and get free job training and search for work. Those who can work, but refuse to do so should be cut off from funds and their children, if any, placed in foster homes.

Welfare is good when it helps people through a tough time in their lives or provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. We should provide better services for welfare recipients to give them the resources to impprove their position in life. The problem is that many of the people on welfare can't find jobs that pay a living wage, so they'd rather stay on welfare and eat regularly than work at Walmart and starve. We need to slow down globalization and require employers to pay a living wage if we want to really tackle the welfare problem.

As a Canadian, I totally agree with you. My husband is on forced medical leave, and I'm on maternity leave (We have a 3 1/2 week old boy) and we're on welfare. My maternity payments are deducted dollar for dollar from my welfare payments (which are $1000/mo for a family of 4) and any money I earn from a job would be deducted the same way from my mat leave payments. How the hell are we supposed to get ahead? That said however, there are many people out there who are just sitting on their asses collecting $$ for doing nothing. I think that they need to have better measures in place for preventing people from abusing the system.

I'm so happy right now, because I'm not American. I'd be pissed off if I had to choose between Democrats and Republicans...
Yes, but being portuguese, you are so fortunate to live in a country where former mayors charged with 21 counts of embezlement of public funds return to a heroe´s welcome to their private fiefdoms...yes, we´re truly fortunate not to live in the US... ;)

I would like to see a system that helps train/educate you in something appropriate and helps guide you to a meaningful employment that could help you support yourself and your family.
I have a feeling there are many on welfare that would rather wind up in a full time job with decent benefits and a future, rather than wait for a small check each month.
Welfare is supposed to be temporary-giving people a chance to take a breath, weigh there options and make something work.

I absolutely agree. There are some programs in Canada, but they're not easy to find, and very limited in scope.

A couple of points that simply merit response before my main point:

1)
The Brits have lower crime rates, not because they have a welfare system, but because they are not gun toting nutters like the Americans.

This is lacking in some very important areas - consider canada for example -best estimates approximately 1 gun to every 3 people - yet hardly has a high crime rate. Consider another example - switzerland -which has more guns than it does people!) - and also has a low crime rate.

...regardless of motive, you are willfully idle...

Is it just me that sees the contradiction in terms?

To The Question At Hand

The majority of people on Unemployment 'benefits' are not there to play the system - they are there because they need to be there and are attempting to find their way off them. The major reason that most people who are against them tend to see them as lazy scroungers because that is the way the tabloid journalists (who tend, for some reason I don't know, seem to see it as their mission in life to unearth the 0.01% failure in an otherwise functioning system). Unfortunately these are the papers that are read by the most people. Unfortunately they tend to be believed. For those that don't know what I'm refering to, Britain's best selling 'newspaper' is The Sun (www.thesun.co.uk) - one look should tell it all. Note that I use the term 'Newspaper' in the loosest possible way.

Another major misconception about the welfare system is (as has already been the subject of heated debate, so I won't add much) - is the view that "Surely a job stacking shelves at Tesco/Wal-mart is not above your capabilities - you could always get one of those". This arguement is flawed on several points. As has been said, you would lose your 'benefits' if you got one - and therefore end up with less and not enough money to live on. Another major flaw is that a lot of people are 'over-qualified' for the job (ergo Tesco/Wal-mart wouldn't neccessarily employ them anyway) - and that, strangely, there isn't an endless supply of shelf-stacking jobs. At the end of the day those kind of jobs are only really an option for those living at home with their parents (ie. with little or no bills), and who aren't qualified for anything else.

The final misconception has been touched upon by Pantycellen when mentioning the major unemployment problems of South Wales. It is a flawed argument to suggest that if there are 55,000 people out of work but there are 100,000 vacant posts then no-one shoul be out of work. This only works if the jobs are in the same area as the people and are jobs the people are qualified to do. If you find yourself out of work because your coal mine/steel mill has closed down and your area has mass unemployment, your house tends to be worthless and you have not the means to move to an area where you can get a job.

By the way, I write as someone who is gainfully employed, and doesn't mind paying taxes to a welfare system I have never used (even while I was unemployed). And there are no 'benefits' to being unemployed.

I think we need it. As a person who conisders himself at least a bit compassionate (unlike the social darwinists who've already posted here) I'd be prepared to allow one person to game the system with my tax dollars if ten others who are legitimately in need of help are aided by it.

Obviously, I'd prefer if that one person gaming the system is caught and punished for basically stealing money that should be going to the truly needy, but the point is getting a decent standard of living for people who are in difficult situations. It shouldn't be permanent for anyone, but it should be in place.

Yes, but being portuguese, you are so fortunate to live in a country where former mayors charged with 21 counts of embezlement of public funds return to a heroe´s welcome to their private fiefdoms...yes, we´re truly fortunate not to live in the US... ;)

OK, I can assure you that you're not more shocked at the felgueiras stuff than I am, so... well, Portugal isn't perfect either, but at least I can always pick an alternative that suits my political leanings, whether they're left, center, or right, and my choice isn't limited due to some unfair electoral system, like in the US, you know what I mean? I wasn't trying to say that Portugal is better that the US (we know it's not).

OK, I can assure you that you're not more shocked at the felgueiras stuff than I am, so... well, Portugal isn't perfect either, but at least I can always pick an alternative that suits my political leanings, whether they're left, center, or right, and my choice isn't limited due to some unfair electoral system, like in the US, you know what I mean? I wasn't trying to say that Portugal is better that the US (we know it's not).
Well, saying that you can pick an alternative in political terms is somewhat bold...i mean, we have two centrist parties and three others in the extremes of the political spectrum...curiously enough, it was the issue of the welfare state that drove a wedge between the center-left and center-right parties...that RMG-if you recall, a subsidy granted to all unemployed citizens-merited strong opposal from the social democrats...Portugal must be the only country in the civilized world were a social-democratic party would oppose such a measure...(donde é q teclas em lisboa?, já agora)

In my experience, a lot of the people who are angry about those on welfare "stealing their money" have never actually been in a position where their choice was go on welfare or live in their car (that they can't afford to keep running) and eat maybe once every two days, if that. They also seem to think that because they have a job for the moment, that there must be an infinite number of jobs out there and people are just too lazy to go out and get one.

Sometimes there simply are no jobs. I live in area where, for the time being, the only decent-paying job for someone of my age and skill level is working at a meatworks. Now, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I will not work at a place like that. Call that 'willfully underemployed' if you like, but from my point of view, it's similar to calling a young a Catholic woman 'wilfully underemployed' because she refuses to become a prostitute.

The other thing many of these people often seem to forget is that they are receiving their income through a society that requires a certain level of out-and-out unemployment (usually around 5%, at least) to continue to function. This is basic high school level economics for the majority of Western societies. If they do not like having their money 'stolen', they should press for their government to instigate a system that can support and encourage 100% employment of its citizens, or at least does not rely on welfare payments to keep its economy chugging along.

Well, saying that you can pick an alternative in political terms is somewhat bold...i mean, we have two centrist parties and three others in the extremes of the political spectrum...curiously enough, it was the issue of the welfare state that drove a wedge between the center-left and center-right parties...that RMG-if you recall, a subsidy granted to all unemployed citizens-merited strong opposal from the social democrats...Portugal must be the only country in the civilized world were a social-democratic party would oppose such a measure...(donde é q teclas em lisboa?, já agora)

You know as well as I know that the portuguese social democrats are social democrats in name only as they're centre-right. They sit with the European People's Party in the European Parliament! No surprise they opposed the RMG... They are clearly different from the socialist party. OK, they're both centrist, but at least one is clearly centre-left and the other centre-right. (ah e teclo da graça, e tu?)

You know as well as I know that the portuguese social democrats are social democrats in name only as they're centre-right. They sit with the European People's Party in the European Parliament! No surprise they opposed the RMG... They are clearly different from the socialist party. OK, they're both centrist, but at least one is clearly centre-left and the other centre-right. (ah e teclo da graça, e tu?)
well, many socialists would disagree with you on that note of PS being a center-left party under PM Socrates...but then again, there were always various socialist parties inside PS (Alegre vs Soares, anyone?) (teclo de campo de ouriq, mas conheço pessoas na graça)

well, many socialists would disagree with you on that note of PS being a center-left party under PM Socrates...but then again, there were always various socialist parties inside PS (Alegre vs Soares, anyone?) (teclo de campo de ouriq, mas conheço pessoas na graça)

Yes, as a big party of the centre, it's natural that the PS has a lot of ideological dispute within the party... And it's normal that the more leftist members will always say that the centre-leftist ones are not on the left side...

Why does this "taxation is theft" thing argument keep showing up? Anyway, as libertarians are fond of saying that people in jobs with low pay or terrible conditions are there of their own choice, I'll just say this: If you think taxation is theft, move to a country that doesn't tax you.

Taxation for universal government services is justified, taxation for wealth redistribution is not. And if this nation becomes a socialist nation, I will move to one that is not, assuming I will be allowed to.

ICall that 'willfully underemployed' if you like, but from my point of view, it's similar to calling a young a Catholic woman 'wilfully underemployed' because she refuses to become a prostitute.

Technically, I remember a story along those lines in Germany this summer.
Prostitution is a legal profession in Germany. It doesn't require a lot of training.

I'd already made myself clear on the issue. You're just pissed because I'm getting some of your precious green.

Gracious, eh? Why don't we just turn this whole thing into a bullshit fest, then?

Whatever arouses you, dude.

If this is the best you can make out of my points, then so be it. I will find someone who will discuss this issue on moral basis, not on a "what about me" basis.

Also, I have $25,000 of student loans, have a job making a little less than 20k a year, and rent a room out of my cousins house, so you aren't getting any of what "precious green" I actually have.

Technically, I remember a story along those lines in Germany this summer.
Prostitution is a legal profession in Germany. It doesn't require a lot of training.
I think that particular story turned out to be complete nonsense. Some stringer on a right wing tabloid making up a case that he thought might have applied in a country where prostitution isn't illegal.

Taxation for universal government services is justified, taxation for wealth redistribution is not. And if this nation becomes a socialist nation, I will move to one that is not, assuming I will be allowed to.

Why do you think a Socialist nation would want to keep somebody with that kind of attitude? It would be far more stable if everyone who objected to Socialism did leave the country and I doubt your skills are irreplaceable.

There is a very clear political reason that the system in the US is designed the way it is. Keep in mind that it was designed by the Democratic Party of the 1960s.

The intended effect was to isolate and consolidate the poor in ghettos. Where they would be bound to stay in order to keep receiving their benefits. Where all the crime and other problems would be isolated as well. Makes policing easier. Keeps crime in the suburbs down. And, the added benefit for the Democrats is that it concentrates loyal voters who receive benefits in single districts. An effect that you can see to this day, with the blue areas of the map being strongly Democratic, and strongly concentrated in areas where people receive benefits. Can't afford to vote against your check.

And anyone who tries to leave the system is doing the equivalent of scaling a barbed wire fence.

But it's all covered up with the chocolate sauce and berries of, "we're helping the poor".

It's help, but with a terrible, terrible cost. The primary difference between the US model and the Norway/Sweden models is intent. The US designers, the Democratic party, had NO INTENTION of helping the poor. Just sweeping them into a corner where they could take political advantage of them.

Well I have no personal knowledge of the formation of the Welfare system, and I don't know what was in the hearts and minds of those that did. Your theory is conspiracy-riffic if I may say so myself( :) ) but I doubt anyone is a douchebag enough to do that.

My feeling is that the programs are unfocused, have been put in place hodge-podge over the years, are inefficient and muddled in buerocracy and do not have steady political support. Which is why I would support a new, streamlined system.

I doubt either party really wants to change anything, though. Democrats would, for pride in having designed the current system, defend it, whilst Republicans would attack a new one as welfare makes Republicans uneasy. I doubt either would see that a good welfare program would in the end solve both party's hangups - it would help the poor while in the long run reducing the number of people on welfare. The very definition of Win-Win.

Why do you think a Socialist nation would want to keep somebody with that kind of attitude? It would be far more stable if everyone who objected to Socialism did leave the country and I doubt your skills are irreplaceable.

I certainly would be replaceable, the trouble is that it is those people who are less replaceable, inventors, innovators, business leaders, etc. that would be the first to leave. A socialist nation would have trouble keeping those who are truly productive within the society, as there would be less reward domestically than in other areas of the world. That is why I worry about forced labor for those that are extremely difficult to replace. Look at what the Soviet Union did with their scientists.

Taxation for universal government services is justified, taxation for wealth redistribution is not. And if this nation becomes a socialist nation, I will move to one that is not, assuming I will be allowed to.

But what tax is used for isn't relevent to whether or not it is theft. Either it is theft and therefore unjustifiable, or it is something different. Where the money goes is for a democratically elected government to decide, and be judged by the voters. The problem I have with the "tax is theft" argument is that it is completely individualistic and either ignores or opposes democracy.

In most countries the voters clearly do support forms of wealth distribution, otherwise the working majority would not support there being any welfare. However if the Democrats really did intentionally create ghettos to secure votes, that's just despicable and a complete perversion of democracy.

I certainly would be replaceable, the trouble is that it is those people who are less replaceable, inventors, innovators, business leaders, etc. that would be the first to leave. A socialist nation would have trouble keeping those who are truly productive within the society, as there would be less reward domestically than in other areas of the world. That is why I worry about forced labor for those that are extremely difficult to replace. Look at what the Soviet Union did with their scientists.

The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, we don't do forced labour.

Yeah, some people might leave but the truly great innovators and inventors do so from a love of their trade, not from fiscal desire. Thomas Edison was given a huge sum of money for one of his inventions and he spent it all on more equipment for his laboritary. The current level of technology is easily enough to create a universally good standard of living for the country. After we'd shown that a Socialist society could work I suspect we'd have more prospective immigrants than we could take in.

Anyway, I've logging off. Goodnight all. :)

But what tax is used for isn't relevent to whether or not it is theft. Either it is theft and therefore unjustifiable, or it is something different. Where the money goes is for a democratically elected government to decide, and be judged by the voters. The problem I have with the "tax is theft" argument is that it is completely individualistic and either ignores or opposes democracy.

In most countries the voters clearly do support forms of wealth distribution, otherwise the working majority would not support there being any welfare. However if the Democrats really did intentionally create ghettos to secure votes, that's just despicable and a complete perversion of democracy.

Two points:

1. It does matter what tax is used for. If the tax is used to provide a universally utilizable service like roads, the military, the justice system, or parks, it is justifiable, as it is a payment for services. The people pay the government, the government offers them a service. If it used for wealth redistribution, then the people pay the government and recieve no service for it.

2. I do oppose democracy when it is used by the majority to implement their vision of society and morality onto a minority. There is nothing stopping a community from being socialist in a capitalist society, but the government, by threat of violence, prohibits capitalism in a socialist society. Government mandated altruism is no different from any other government mandated morality.

The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, we don't do forced labour.

Yeah, some people might leave but the truly great innovators and inventors do so from a love of their trade, not from fiscal desire. Thomas Edison was given a huge sum of money for one of his inventions and he spent it all on more equipment for his laboritary. The current level of technology is easily enough to create a universally good standard of living for the country. After we'd shown that a Socialist society could work I suspect we'd have more prospective immigrants than we could take in.

Anyway, I've logging off. Goodnight all. :)

Thomas Edison invented stuff for money, it doesn't matter what he spent his earnings on, it was the earnings he was after. I just watched a documentary last night about his rivalry with Westinghouse over electricity. He testified towards the validity of the electric chair, even though he opposed the death penalty, only to give his financial rival's form of electricity a bad name. So don't tell me Edison was motivated by scientific discovery alone.

And even if he was, who mass produces an invention if there is no reward for it.

Thomas Edison invented stuff for money, it doesn't matter what he spent his earnings on, it was the earnings he was after. I just watched a documentary last night about his rivalry with Westinghouse over electricity. He testified towards the validity of the electric chair, even though he opposed the death penalty, only to give his financial rival's form of electricity a bad name. So don't tell me Edison was motivated by scientific discovery alone.

And even if he was, who mass produces an invention if there is no reward for it.
Nikolai Tesla?

In my experience, a lot of the people who are angry about those on welfare "stealing their money" have never actually been in a position where their choice was go on welfare or live in their car (that they can't afford to keep running) and eat maybe once every two days, if that.
I'd like to introduce you to an exception to your assumption: me.

I lived in downtown Akron for about a year and I made roughly $7200. Well below the poverty line by any conventional definition. Guess what? The government took about 25% of my check away anyway, because apparently that's justified if they do certain things with it.

I'm getting kind of tired of telling this story, but it's become something of a necessity in the assumptive chaos of this more or less intellectually bankrupt forum. I didn't take handouts because I knew damn well where they came from. Poor or rich, white or black, its your own damn responsibility to put food on your table, not mine. Without being taxed to pay for other people's needs, I would have made over $10,000: more than enough for my use at that particular time in my life. And when I lost my job, I didn't march down to the unemployment office like pretty much everyone else in that position: I looked for a new job and when I couldn't find one, I moved to a new city and found work at a restaurant that had just opened.

I find your choice to use quoations around the word 'stolen' amusing, to say the least. Tax proponents seem to argue that theft is justified in this context [or some even have the balls to claim it's not theft, even though it fits the definition to the letter] because certain services are rendered to the citizen in exchange. However, I fail to see billionaires making use of these programs that society has forced him to pay for, so that justification has gone out the window.

He can use it, you say, if he becomes impoverished? Well, that's nice, but it still doesn't justify theft to set that program up in the first place. Theft doesn't suddenly not become theft if the money is put to a specific use: if I stole a quarter of your paycheck and paved some street with the money, I'd still be arrested, and depending on the amount I'd probably have some fairly serious charges brought against me. If I stole the same amount that the government steals every day, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. I am not particularly thrilled with the idea that certain people are allowed to do this just because they happen to work on Capitol Hill. Governments have a hard time representing the people when their code of ethics is completely different than what is acceptable to us. I can understand some of the more sensitive functions of the government remaining outside the pervue of the average citizen, but this is taking it too far.

They also seem to think that because they have a job for the moment, that there must be an infinite number of jobs out there and people are just too lazy to go out and get one.
Oh, for the love of...

Sometimes there simply [b]are no jobs. I live in area where, for the time being, the only decent-paying job for someone of my age and skill level is working at a meatworks. Now, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I will not work at a place like that. Call that 'willfully underemployed' if you like, but from my point of view, it's similar to calling a young a Catholic woman 'wilfully underemployed' because she refuses to become a prostitute.
This is a horrible Straw Man. For one thing, prostitution is illegal, and meat packing is not. Furthermore, you're not actually doing any measurable damage to your "cause" by working at a meat packing plant. If it's the only job you can get and you need a job and you have bills to pay for example, you're an idiot for not taking it.

But, just as a point of fact, the most disgusting perversion of the concept of "rights" has to date been the detatchment of 'rights' from 'mankind.' Animal rights is a disgusting moral abomination. To a certain extent I can't complain with it: there's no real justification in beating your dog for the hell of it, but when animal rights come at the expense of ours, I just want to grab a shotgun and give Ingrid Newkirk a nice dose of rock salt. I don't think animal rights activists have any idea how impossible it is to feed this planet without the use of meat as a foodstuff. Imagine an Africa where cattle roam the fields and the people aren't allowed to eat them.

The other thing many of these people often seem to forget is that they are receiving their income through a society that requires a certain level of out-and-out unemployment (usually around 5%, at least) to continue to function. This is basic high school level economics for the majority of Western societies.
This is a new one, I can't say as I've ever heard this before. Care to explain?

If they do not like having their money 'stolen', they should press for their government to instigate a system that can support and encourage 100% employment of its citizens, or at least does not rely on welfare payments to keep its economy chugging along.
Again with the quotes. Anyway, I hate to burst your bubble but welfare doesn't always have to be dependent on whether the person receiving it has a job or not. In many cases, their income is so low [as a result of high living expenses, relatively low wages, and [i]TAXES] that employed individuals can in fact be on welfare or receive SSI assistance.

I happened to live with two such people, so before you try and tell me that's bullshit, save yourself the trouble and stick a sock in it. 100% employment is impossible anyway, as a percentage of our population is more or less functionally incompetent [the very young, the very old, the disabled, etc]. But, as to your second part, yes I am interested pressing for my government to devise a system that does not rely on welfare to keep its economy 'chugging along.'

Oh, and by the way.... welfare doesn't help our economy; it hurts it. Examine, at your leisure, the GDP and trade statistics of, say, the United States versus any one of the welfare states in Europe. There's a reason they had to form the EU to compete with us economically.

Two points:

1. It does matter what tax is used for. If the tax is used to provide a universally utilizable service like roads, the military, the justice system, or parks, it is justifiable, as it is a payment for services. The people pay the government, the government offers them a service. If it used for wealth redistribution, then the people pay the government and recieve no service for it.

2. I do oppose democracy when it is used by the majority to implement their vision of society and morality onto a minority. There is nothing stopping a community from being socialist in a capitalist society, but the government, by threat of violence, prohibits capitalism in a socialist society. Government mandated altruism is no different from any other government mandated morality.
In developed moderately socialist countries, the majority of the people agree with it. In Britain, most citizens are proud of the welfare state and the NHS. Ultimately, it is also theft to exploit people because they were born in the wrong family/class. That's worse than theft - that's grave and unconscienable injustice.

Who needs the money more - the millionaire, or the guy who was born into a family with no money and couldn't afford a decent education? And by the way, it is government's place to make decisions like that. That is what government is for.

In developed moderately socialist countries, the majority of the people agree with it. In Britain, most citizens are proud of the welfare state and the NHS. Ultimately, it is also theft to exploit people because they were born in the wrong family/class. That's worse than theft - that's grave and unconscienable injustice.
And in Germany many people were proud of the regime that existed there. The number of adherents to an idea is not an epistemological validation of the idea they're in favor of.

Who needs the money more - the millionaire, or the guy who was born into a family with no money and couldn't afford a decent education? And by the way, it is government's place to make decisions like that. That is what government is for.
Need is also not a validation for a certain course of action. I may need a car or need insurance to get around [or do my job--I'm a delivery driver], that doesn't mean it's someone else's responbsibility to provide it for me. If anything, upward mobility for said poor guy is a much greater possibility under capitalism.

In short, it's not a question of who needs it, it's a question of who has the will and ability to earn it.

And in Germany many people were proud of the regime that existed there. The number of adherents to an idea is not an epistemological validation of the idea they're in favor of. No, you miss my point. The victims of the Nazis didn't support them - however, the "victims" of Europe's redistribution very often support it. Here's one.


Need is also not a validation for a certain course of action. I may need a car or need insurance to get around [or do my job--I'm a delivery driver], that doesn't mean it's someone else's responbsibility to provide it for me. If anything, upward mobility for said poor guy is a much greater possibility under capitalism.

In short, it's not a question of who needs it, it's a question of who has the will and ability to earn it. No, quite often it's not. That's the kind of complacency that Thatcher was deplored for, and why the Conservatives are generally mistrusted. The idea that people are poor through their own fault is flawed - how does the guy born into a family with no money have the same chance as someone like… me, for instance? I'm not a socialist, but not a classical liberal either - to protect equality of opportunity, some balance must be found - just as negative liberty is necessary to keep liberty.

No, you miss my point. The victims of the Nazis didn't support them - however, the "victims" of Europe's redistribution very often support it. Here's one.
No, I don't miss your point. To recap, your original statement was: "In developed moderately socialist countries, the majority of the people agree with it. In Britain, most citizens are proud of the welfare state and the NHS."

Taken in context with your original disagreement with VO, you seemed to be arguing that the system was just because the people who live in countries with such practices appeared to have no problem with it. [i]My point is that it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference whether the people support it: it's still theft, and it's still not a legitimate function of government. If the people would prefer to set up their own voluntary wealth redistribution centers, that'd be fine. But demanding of every citizen that he comform to these values is ridiculous.

No, quite often it's not. That's the kind of complacency that Thatcher was deplored for, and why the Conservatives are generally mistrusted. The idea that people are poor through their own fault is flawed - how does the guy born into a family with no money have the same chance as someone like? me, for instance? I'm not a socialist, but not a classical liberal either - to protect equality of opportunity, some balance must be found - just as negative liberty is necessary to keep liberty.
Where the fuck did this come from? I didn't say that 'people are poor through their own fault,' I said that they have the power [in a CAPITALIST country] to change that. I hate the fucking conservatives too.

No, you miss my point. The victims of the Nazis didn't support them - however, the "victims" of Europe's redistribution very often support it. Here's one.

No, quite often it's not. That's the kind of complacency that Thatcher was deplored for, and why the Conservatives are generally mistrusted. The idea that people are poor through their own fault is flawed - how does the guy born into a family with no money have the same chance as someone like… me, for instance? I'm not a socialist, but not a classical liberal either - to protect equality of opportunity, some balance must be found - just as negative liberty is necessary to keep liberty.

The idea of public welfare is a nice one. In some cases, it has been implemented well, and in some cases, the system is not abused by the people.

However, if you're going to argue that the welfare system in the US is anything except a mess (unfair at best, horrific at worst), you're less intelligent than I thought.

I don't quite understand the question.

"class" is a man made delusion the derives from just
being plain stuck up and fear of others.
this mental "otherness" then warps into solid objects
and the accumulation of wealth to further that cause.

some people don't realize that their sheeet stinks just as bad
as everybody elses.

The idea of public welfare is a nice one. In some cases, it has been implemented well, and in some cases, the system is not abused by the people.

However, if you're going to argue that the welfare system in the US is anything except a mess (unfair at best, horrific at worst), you're less intelligent than I thought.
Can the fact that the system in the 'States doesn't work very well be taken as a damning indictment of the whole notion of social support systems, though? Because looking through this thread, I get the notion that there's a few people hereabouts who seem to think as much.

No, I don't miss your point. To recap, your original statement was: "In developed moderately socialist countries, the majority of the people agree with it. In Britain, most citizens are proud of the welfare state and the NHS."

Taken in context with your original disagreement with VO, you seemed to be arguing that the system was just because the people who live in countries with such practices appeared to have no problem with it. [i]My point is that it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference whether the people support it: it's still theft, and it's still not a legitimate function of government. If the people would prefer to set up their own voluntary wealth redistribution centers, that'd be fine. But demanding of every citizen that he comform to these values is ridiculous. Really? I would say that results count. Kidnap is also a legitimate function of government, as is imposing rules on how parents have to send their children to school (which they do in many countries). Charities would not work in the same way as taxes, and tax is not very high. In fact, little is taken from the individual. By aiding those who can barely afford to keep themselves alive to find work (and yes, having the right to equal treatment for diseases is a very important right and why we have the NHS), the economy is strengthened as more people can work.


Where the fuck did this come from? I didn't say that 'people are poor through their own fault,' I said that they have the power [in a CAPITALIST country] to change that. I hate the fucking conservatives too. Which they often don't. Not if you're right at the bottom. If they have the power to change that, why don't they? I mean, the only other explanation is that they are lazy… which would sort of be statistically innaccurate, and I'm sure you're not saying that.

Can the fact that the system in the 'States doesn't work very well be taken as a damning indictment of the whole notion of social support systems, though? Because looking through this thread, I get the notion that there's a few people hereabouts who seem to think as much.

No, I can't damn the whole idea, because it works in some places.

But it's very obvious to me that it isn't working at all here in the US. It punishes people for trying to better themselves. It has created a permanent underclass, raised crime rates through the roof in certain areas, fostered the creation of criminal gangs, etc.

Social welfare in a place like Sweden is not social welfare in the US.

Here in the US, welfare is a tar pit which traps people. As it has trapped Potaria.

It's not that she has no intention of getting out - the whole system is designed to keep her there.


Actually low wages trap Potaria. Low wages are due to corporate greed, except in a very small number of cases where the firm is not doing well or where the firm is particularly small. In some sense, the problem is due to high economic freedom in the US. Also there is no cultural expectation that employers owe anything to employees.

But if by system you mean the combination of free corporate greed and a welfare state, then yeah, that inspires idleness and poverty. If you leave the system as is but remove welfare, you merely promote low wages and starvation. Only the corporations win.

No, I can't damn the whole idea, because it works in some places.

But it's very obvious to me that it isn't working at all here in the US. It punishes people for trying to better themselves. It has created a permanent underclass, raised crime rates through the roof in certain areas, fostered the creation of criminal gangs, etc.

Social welfare in a place like Sweden is not social welfare in the US.
I have no argument with that (the Swedish system seems to work a lot better than the one we have here as well), and it certainly appears that the American set up doesn't work. I just find it strange that some people here seem to be arguing something along the lines of "Well, we can't make it work properly, so there's no way some poncy European socialised Democracy can manage that either." You're not one of them, so good for you.

:gundge: fuck no

Actually low wages trap Potaria. Low wages are due to corporate greed, except in a very small number of cases where the firm is not doing well or where the firm is particularly small. In some sense, the problem is due to high economic freedom in the US. Also there is no cultural expectation that employers owe anything to employees.

But if by system you mean the combination of free corporate greed and a welfare state, then yeah, that inspires idleness and poverty. If you leave the system as is but remove welfare, you merely promote low wages and starvation. Only the corporations win.

Not just low wages - the cost of living needs to be part of the equation.

If you haven't noticed already, regardless of how you vote in America, the corporations win. Ever noticed the pattern of giving election contributions?

Most companies give to BOTH parties. That way, no matter who gets elected, they win.

Can the fact that the system in the 'States doesn't work very well be taken as a damning indictment of the whole notion of social support systems, though? Because looking through this thread, I get the notion that there's a few people hereabouts who seem to think as much.

I don't agree with wealth redistribution, but at least we (US) could do it in a way that benefits society.

I can live with education and healthcare vouchers, setting people up to succeed, but the current idea in America of providing for people who fail is not working. Like Potaria said earlier, welfare right now is just keeping him from starving, not helping him become a productive member of society (that's going to get a nasty reply).

We are giving away a lot of fish, but not training any fishermen.

Really? I would say that results count. Kidnap is also a legitimate function of government, as is imposing rules on how parents have to send their children to school (which they do in many countries).
No, it's not. Education is a seperate issue, I can discuss this particular monstrosity further with you in another thread if you like, but the idea that a government automatically knows what's best for $FAMILY is fucking sick at best

Charities would not work in the same way as taxes, and tax is not very high. In fact, little is taken from the individual.
Not very high my ass. I lose between 20-25% of every paycheck. That's a significant amount when you're only making $150 or $200 a week: it's like kicking Monday and Tuesday in the ass. It tells me, in effect, that 20-25% of my time is more or less state sanctioned slavery: I'm not really working for my benefit during that time, but for a nameless, faceless mass of people who I will never meet nor receive so much as a thank you note from.

By aiding those who can barely afford to keep themselves alive to find work (and yes, having the right to equal treatment for diseases is a very important right and why we have the NHS), the economy is strengthened as more people can work.
Firstly, 'equal treatment for diseases' is not a "right" if you have to compromise the rights of others to acheive this particular end. The right to life does not mean one has the right to the tools of life, since said tools must be produced by other men and dispatched at their consent.

Secondly, the return we receive, economically speaking, for the money we spend on welfare is appallingly inadequate. Welfare gives people 'free' money, which doesn't always encourage them to go out and earn money of their own. Methinks you're getting Welfare and Unemployment slightly mixed up.

Which they often don't. Not if you're right at the bottom.
Bullshit. The history of this country is filled with rags-to-riches stories.

If they have the power to change that, why don't they? I mean, the only other explanation is that they are lazy? which would sort of be statistically innaccurate, and I'm sure you're not saying that.
Because we've made poverty a career choice. If you can work for six months, get fired, the collect unemployment for a brief period while you find another job, and keep doing this, you've stifled the necessity to go out and earn your fortune. By distributing welfare almost indiscriminately out of pity, you're rewarding failure. Being poor should be like living in Siberia [for people who can work]; it should be harsh and unforgiving, and one should have no desire to return to it.

In Mexico, for example, the price of bread is fixed so that a peso can always buy the same amount. The thinking here was that if they fixed the price, poor folks could always buy bread. But guess what? Some people found out that by standing at a streetcorner for 8 hours, s/he could feed their family, which is why Mexico City is such a shithole. By enacting programs like these, you are removing the necessity of productive action from the lives of your citizens. You are regulating man to the role of an animal, who takes what nature gives him as opposed to going out and making it for yourself.

I don't agree with wealth redistribution, but at least we (US) could do it in a way that benefits society.

I can live with education and healthcare vouchers, setting people up to succeed, but the current idea in America of providing for people who fail is not working. Like Potaria said earlier, welfare right now is just keeping him from starving, not helping him become a productive member of society (that's going to get a nasty reply).

We are giving away a lot of fish, but not training any fishermen.
To be fair, stopping somebody from starving isn't a bad thing of itself.
Has this situation worsened since a lot of the unskilled labour jobs have been removed by people shifting their manufacturing base to the third world?

Actually low wages trap Potaria. Low wages are due to corporate greed, except in a very small number of cases where the firm is not doing well or where the firm is particularly small. In some sense, the problem is due to high economic freedom in the US. Also there is no cultural expectation that employers owe anything to employees.

But if by system you mean the combination of free corporate greed and a welfare state, then yeah, that inspires idleness and poverty. If you leave the system as is but remove welfare, you merely promote low wages and starvation. Only the corporations win.

Actually, low wages are created by the relatively small amount of utility provided by and easy replaceability of low level workers. We like to blame the managers of corporations even though they provide a much greater utility, are much harder to replace, and are simply doing the job they are hired to do.

Not very high my ass. I lose between 20-25% of every paycheck. That's a significant amount when you're only making $150 or $200 a week: it's like kicking Monday and Tuesday in the ass. It tells me, in effect, that 20-25% of my time is more or less state sanctioned slavery: I'm not really working for my benefit during that time, but for a nameless, faceless mass of people who I will never meet nor receive so much as a thank you note from. Where do you live?


Firstly, 'equal treatment for diseases' is not a "right" if you have to compromise the rights of others to acheive this particular end. The right to life does not mean one has the right to the tools of life, since said tools must be produced by other men and dispatched at their consent. The greater number are happier… also I thought you had life, liberty and happiness. It's also a necessary evil. It's not compromising, because it's a right to LIFE - a fundamental right. Money is secondary, and it's not like all your money is funding it.

Secondly, the return we receive, economically speaking, for the money we spend on welfare is appallingly inadequate. Welfare gives people 'free' money, which doesn't always encourage them to go out and earn money of their own. Methinks you're getting Welfare and Unemployment slightly mixed up. I didn't say welfare was well handled. I said I thought the idea was good.


Bullshit. The history of this country is filled with rags-to-riches stories. And how many rags to rags stories? How many become rich compared to those that remain in the underclass?[/QUOTE]

Someone probably mentioned this already, but germany developed a system which I find clever, at least in theory. Anyone who doesn't accept a job offered to him by our government job-finding agency (sounds funny, oui?) is excluded from receiving unemployment money or other help that isn't absolutely fundamental to life, as in food and water.

To be fair, stopping somebody from starving isn't a bad thing of itself.
Has this situation worsened since a lot of the unskilled labour jobs have been removed by people shifting their manufacturing base to the third world?

No, I didn't mean I wanted people to starve, I just meant that our efforts should be directed towards educating people in ways that will benefit society.

And the movement of industrial jobs out of the country has made the economy shift to more low-paying, low security retail jobs.

Don't you know a lot of people are born with very few chances of succeeding? It's not darwinism, it's social injustice. What's wrong with pulling them out of poverty? No-one chooses the family they're born in...

Liberal tactic #4, put yourself in their place and be compassionate...

I was born poor. One of two kids to a 17 year old mother without a high school diploma. No father, and no child support, and NO welfare. I KNOW poor. And everything I have I earned. Not because someoen gave me anything, because i didn't like being poor. Back then poor was hard. And now I'm supposed to give it to someone else.

Grow up. You can't save the poor, only the poor can save themselves. And they don't need your money, they need hurdles to overcome. They need some spine and a little bit of sack.

Actually, low wages are created by the relatively small amount of utility provided by and easy replaceability of low level workers. We like to blame the managers of corporations even though they provide a much greater utility, are much harder to replace, and are simply doing the job they are hired to do.
I disagree: if Bush is capable of doing management jobs (though the mess he made of that company suggests that he isn't massively capable) then they could probably drag somebody in off the street and have them take a stab at it.

Transipsheim: somebody has at least mentioned the story the Sun (or possibly the Mail or the Mirror: somebody like that) invented to mock that approach.

Vittos: I didn't impluy that you did (sorry if it came over that way). That's an attitude that does you credit, but from a government viewpoint it's probably a lot cheaper to keep somebody in foodstamps until another menial job turns up than it would be to train them to do something else.

Where do you live?
Midwest US.

The greater number are happier? also I thought you had life, liberty and happiness.
Yes, and if you'll read my post again you may notice that there is a distinciton between life and the tools of life. The idea that said tools should be dispatched to those in "need" makes two mistakes. The first and most important is that it removes the need for the recipient to produce anything of value, or in other words it removes the need to contribute anything in return save for the recipient's mere existence, the furtherance of which is somehow more important than mine, in the eyes of the government. Just because someone has a certain amount of resources doesn't mean he's obligated to give a share of them up--at no benefit to him-- just because someone else has less.

Second, it makes the mistake of assuming that an entity is responsible for the designation of just what does and doesn't constitute 'need.' This is tantamount to the belief that reality and morality are dictated by a consciousness: be it singular [God] or collective [Society], this theory is doomed to falsehood in any variant.

It's also a necessary evil. It's not compromising, because it's a right to LIFE - a fundamental right. Money is secondary, and it's not like all your money is funding it.
That's a beautiful contradiction. On one hand, you say it's not a compromise, then you say it's a 'necessary evil.' If it's a 'necessary evil,' than a compromise has been reached with it to make it 'good.' You'll pardon me if I refuse to accept pain.

Money [or more generally speaking, productive activity] is not secondary because it is an extension of the life which acquired it. Ever hear the saying "time is money?"

I didn't say welfare was well handled. I said I thought the idea was good.
A lot of people still say that about communism, but the only times it's ever really been tried at any meaningful level, it's led more or less to ruin. Nice try, but theory dictates practice. Part of the reason it doesn't work is because it's bullshit.

And how many rags to rags stories? How many become rich compared to those that remain in the underclass?
Probably some thousands, but this is more or less irrelevant. The people who choose not to take advantage of their opportunities are of no concern to me.

Ugh, not THIS shit again.

If there was no welfare, I'd've been dead years ago. We *need* it, no matter how much you people whine about "your" money being "taken" from you.
Welfare is necessary for children and some others who are temporarily in trouble, however, it does tend to create an inter-generation dependency in some. The solution is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to search for means to insure that the goal and effect of welfare is to lift people out of both temporary need and learned dependency.

I disagree: if Bush is capable of doing management jobs (though the mess he made of that company suggests that he isn't massively capable) then they could probably drag somebody in off the street and have them take a stab at it.

I think the way a Harvard business grad from a wealthy pedigree has failed time and time again only shows the importance and irreplaceability of a good corporate officer.

Vittos: I didn't impluy that you did (sorry if it came over that way). That's an attitude that does you credit, but from a government viewpoint it's probably a lot cheaper to keep somebody in foodstamps until another menial job turns up than it would be to train them to do something else.

I agree with you, but I also think we can agree that long term plans are much cheaper over time than temporary fix-its.

Those who grow up well-off are far, far more likely to be well-off in later life, is this because the working class are lazy? After all, someone born well-off would recieve the same payments to do nothing as well.

There's a reason they had to form the EU to compete with us economically.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/30/global.competition/

Btw, Finland is a welfare state.

Don't forget to check the other nations in the top ten, as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/30/global.competition/

Btw, Finland is a welfare state.

Don't forget to check the other nations in the top ten, as well.
Read my post again, then remove foot from mouth.

I said compare their GDP and trade figures, not the business-friendliness of the nation in question. Finland would rapidly discover that if their citizens had more money [i.e. less welfare] then the legislative foundation they've put in place for businesses would be more effective.

Those who grow up well-off are far, far more likely to be well-off in later life, is this because the working class are lazy? After all, someone born well-off would recieve the same payments to do nothing as well.

Oh, I'd also ask the 'stealing government' brigade if they support taxes going towards road building/maintanence?

Those who grow up well-off are far, far more likely to be well-off in later life, is this because the working class are lazy? After all, someone born well-off would recieve the same payments to do nothing as well.
Not at all. Growing up with people who have time to spend with you, who have money to spend on you, and who have the values and attitudes of those who have time and money is a tremendous advantage. Yet some who do quite well in life started out dirt poor. It's all in the will and perseverance for them; extensive "re-education" is necessary for the rest.

:headbang: It does. Any form of Socialism creates laziness and idleness. Why do you think President Clinton gave an ultimatum for people to get off the Welfare System? I don't even like Pres. Clinton, yet even I can appreciate that. It would also be due to note that a Welfare or Socialist State is prohibited and cannont function under our Constitution.

The land of the free outlaws an idiology that also allows for freedom. Ok,

Not at all. Growing up with people who have time to spend with you, who have money to spend on you, and who have the values and attitudes of those who have time and money is a tremendous advantage. Yet some who do quite well in life started out dirt poor. It's all in the will and perseverance for them; extensive "re-education" is necessary for the rest.

Surely a reduction in welfare would only increase this inequality?

Surely a reduction in welfare would only increase this inequality?
Perhaps not if you cut only after lifting welfare recipients out of a need for assistance.

Here is an idea:

If someone concieves a child while under welfare, benefits don't go up, but the state takes the kid. The kid goes straight to an adoption agency...

Would that be an incentive for someone to better themself?

:p

Oh, I'd also ask the 'stealing government' brigade if they support taxes going towards road building/maintanence?
No, but such as it is most roads aren't currently tax funded anyway. Generally, the state's DOT collects money for roadways by using license fees, tickets, and other various costs associated with driving. It's a good system because the people who pay for it are the people who use it, and that's why it works.

Currently the only roadway that is federally funded is the Interstate system, and I [i]definately am not in favor of that, since the Federal Government likes to use that money as leverage to circumvent state's rights. They did it in the '70s to strongarm the states into raising the drinking age to 21, and they're in the process of doing it again to strongarm the states into enacting 'zero tolerance' [read: 'zero intelligence'] drug driving laws. In a few short years, we may be required to offer urine samples whenever we're stopped for a moving violation. Somehow, I would hope that one's driving ability is judged by his apparent ability rather than the contents of his urine.

What about taxes towards health care? Anyone believe it shouldn't be provided by the state?

Yep. But that's for another thread.

Not very high my ass. I lose between 20-25% of every paycheck. That's a significant amount when you're only making $150 or $200 a week: it's like kicking Monday and Tuesday in the ass. It tells me, in effect, that 20-25% of my time is more or less state sanctioned slavery: I'm not really working for my benefit during that time, but for a nameless, faceless mass of people who I will never meet nor receive so much as a thank you note from.

I dont know what country you come from, but in Britian (which is a welfare state) the first £5000 you earn is not taxed. Then there are brackets which go up in a way that the more you pay, the more you are taxed. I think its between £5000 and £12000 your taxed 20% then between £12000 and £20000 its 30% and between £20000 and £35000 its 47%. I dont know exactly.


Firstly, 'equal treatment for diseases' is not a "right" if you have to compromise the rights of others to acheive this particular end. The right to life does not mean one has the right to the tools of life, since said tools must be produced by other men and dispatched at their consent.

I not sure I get exactly what you mean here but it sounds like your saying you dont have a right to the medical equipment needed to save you since other people make it. In Britian we have the NHS and it proves you very wrong.


Secondly, the return we receive, economically speaking, for the money we spend on welfare is appallingly inadequate. Welfare gives people 'free' money, which doesn't always encourage them to go out and earn money of their own. Methinks you're getting Welfare and Unemployment slightly mixed up.

In Britian we have a system called the New deal which (this is a basic description) does the following things to help people get off unemployment benefits and back to work

- Employs a system which means that they have to provide certian proofs of their job searching, and if they dont provide said proofs they dont get their beneifts

- Keeps a register of all the low skilled, moderate pay jobs availible currently to help those trying to find a job by setting up interviews for them with them etc

- Has set up a set of courses for those whithout nessecary qualifcations to go on to get skills training they need for use in the workplace, which the government pays for and gets people looking for jobs to go to


Because we've made poverty a career choice. If you can work for six months, get fired, the collect unemployment for a brief period while you find another job, and keep doing this, you've stifled the necessity to go out and earn your fortune. By distributing welfare almost indiscriminately out of pity, you're rewarding failure. Being poor should be like living in Siberia [for people who can work]; it should be harsh and unforgiving, and one should have no desire to return to it.

Its this kind of simplistic, bull head attitude which shows just why Thatcher was unpopular on this. Have you considered that people are often poor because they are born into poverty, that there are social and political factors beyond their control which make it exceptionally difficult for them to get anywhere. And while your country may have loads of rags to riches stories, I think if you were to count up all the rags to rags stories (which dont get told so often) then you will find there were lots more..

Oh, I'd also ask the 'stealing government' brigade if they support taxes going towards road building/maintanence?

absolutely. but not for a huge welfare state who are able to work but don't feel like it and become dependent on government to support them.

I dont know what country you come from, but in Britian (which is a welfare state) the first £5000 you earn is not taxed. Then there are brackets which go up in a way that the more you pay, the more you are taxed. I think its between £5000 and £12000 your taxed 20% then between £12000 and £20000 its 30% and between £20000 and £35000 its 47%. I dont know exactly.



I not sure I get exactly what you mean here but it sounds like your saying you dont have a right to the medical equipment needed to save you since other people make it. In Britian we have the NHS and it proves you very wrong.



In Britian we have a system called the New deal which (this is a basic description) does the following things to help people get off unemployment benefits and back to work

- Employs a system which means that they have to provide certian proofs of their job searching, and if they dont provide said proofs they dont get their beneifts

- Keeps a register of all the low skilled, moderate pay jobs availible currently to help those trying to find a job by setting up interviews for them with them etc

- Has set up a set of courses for those whithout nessecary qualifcations to go on to get skills training they need for use in the workplace, which the government pays for and gets people looking for jobs to go to



Its this kind of simplistic, bull head attitude which shows just why Thatcher was unpopular on this. Have you considered that people are often poor because they are born into poverty, that there are social and political factors beyond their control which make it exceptionally difficult for them to get anywhere. And while your country may have loads of rags to riches stories, I think if you were to count up all the rags to rags stories (which dont get told so often) then you will find there were lots more..

your last paragraph speaks of the defeatist attitude that plagues many poor people today... they believe that they are helpless. Rather than taking on can-do attitudes and using those to first get a job, then build a resume and move up... there are people who take 1 shot at getting a huge job and if they don't get that job, they give up. Instead of treating people like helpless, retarded children, we should treat them like able adults and heap expectations on them, cimbined with emotional support (IE, a pep talk of sorts). A self-perception of hopelessness helps nobody.

absolutely. but not for a huge welfare state who are able to work but don't feel like it and become dependent on government to support them.

Such as that in Britain then :p

Such as that in Britain then :p

yeah. we struggle with it here too... people either give up (no wonder, with all the "you can't get anywhere in life" message coming from many democrats) or simply like living off the work of others (not saying all or most, but there are some who don't mind it at all... ya get your food and shelter and don't have to work a lick. Sounds like a nice gig.)... and in either case, some can become dependent on government. We need to get these people moving, get them working.. at least those who can work.

I dont know what country you come from, but in Britian (which is a welfare state) the first £5000 you earn is not taxed. Then there are brackets which go up in a way that the more you pay, the more you are taxed. I think its between £5000 and £12000 your taxed 20% then between £12000 and £20000 its 30% and between £20000 and £35000 its 47%. I dont know exactly.
Interestingly enough, my country of origin can be decuced simply by examining the symbol that sits in front of my wage statements. For reference, it's a $.

This, combined with the rest of your post, seems to indicate you are not interested in actually paying any attention to what I have to say. Either that or it just indicates an unwillingness to think, a common phenomenon in today's Left. But yes, we have progressive taxes too. That doesn't make any difference to me, since morality is not a matter of numbers.

I not sure I get exactly what you mean here but it sounds like your saying you dont have a right to the medical equipment needed to save you since other people make it. In Britian we have the NHS and it proves you very wrong.
You're not sure, and it shows. You have a right to said equipment if and only if you can exchange something of value for it, since the equipment obviously has a certain amount of value to the creator. Anything short of this is theft.

In Britian we have a system called the New deal which (this is a basic description) does the following things to help people get off unemployment benefits and back to work
Yeah, we've got it too.

- Employs a system which means that they have to provide certian proofs of their job searching, and if they dont provide said proofs they dont get their beneifts
Yes, the US also does this.

- Keeps a register of all the low skilled, moderate pay jobs availible currently to help those trying to find a job by setting up interviews for them with them etc
We have them too. They're called the Want Ads.

- Has set up a set of courses for those whithout nessecary qualifcations to go on to get skills training they need for use in the workplace, which the government pays for and gets people looking for jobs to go to
Except that the government doesn't 'pay for it,' you and every other citizen in your country does, if it's tax funded. A disgusting policy.

Its this kind of simplistic, bull head attitude which shows just why Thatcher was unpopular on this.
And we all know that popularity is the ultimate gauge of what's right and what's not. Really, half the time you guys would just be better off not saying anything.

Have you considered that people are often poor because they are born into poverty, that there are social and political factors beyond their control which make it exceptionally difficult for them to get anywhere.
Yes, and have you considered that by eliminating the chance for any upward mobility to speak of completely flies in the face of the prevailing Leftist ideology which preaches ease of life for the masses?

Why is it that none of you can grasp the concept that [i]making everyone poor doesn't help anything? I mean, Christ even if you do want to use Marginal Utility as your moral barometer, decreasing the aggregate economic stability of your entire population in order to save the few who are [i]actually poor is ridiculous. Welfare essentially advocates a sort of rule by minority, since only 12% of this country is classified as 'poor' [and yet most still have apartments and cars and toasters and things].

And while your country may have loads of rags to riches stories, I think if you were to count up all the rags to rags stories (which dont get told so often) then you will find there were lots more..
This has already been addressed, and as I said before it's not particularly relevent. If the opportunity for success is there, that doesn't mean in and of itself that everyone will reach for it. The people who choose not to take advantage of their opportunities are of no concern to me. The people who can't can always fall back on you people who like to give their money up in oder to help them.

I dont know what country you come from, but in Britian (which is a welfare state) the first £5000 you earn is not taxed. Then there are brackets which go up in a way that the more you pay, the more you are taxed. I think its between £5000 and £12000 your taxed 20% then between £12000 and £20000 its 30% and between £20000 and £35000 its 47%. I dont know exactly.




Communist Manifesto

#2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Not to mention

#10 Free Public Education.

Liberals in the US, UK, and Canada are all socialists. Take from the people who work and give to the poor politariat.

your last paragraph speaks of the defeatist attitude that plagues many poor people today... they believe that they are helpless. Rather than taking on can-do attitudes and using those to first get a job, then build a resume and move up... there are people who take 1 shot at getting a huge job and if they don't get that job, they give up. Instead of treating people like helpless, retarded children, we should treat them like able adults and heap expectations on them, cimbined with emotional support (IE, a pep talk of sorts). A self-perception of hopelessness helps nobody.

You missed the point. What I meant was that there are people in situations that are caused by factors beyond there control and because of this they are poor. The problem with the right wing aproch is that it says that all poor people are there because they dont work hard enough, thus to encourage them to work hard, we should make being out of work as unattractive as possible so as to encourage them back into work. This does not work, as was proved by Thatchers government. What needs to be done is to have a more complex system, not just benefits. This is what the new deal does, it works on a carrot, stick, treadmill function. The carrot being the job at the end which the government help them find by keeping a registry of all the jobs they can. The treadmill to help them get there being education, because many poor people are poor because their parents were poor and they were in a social situation where learning and education was seen as impractical and unhelpful. Thus the British government provides courses for underqualified unemployed people to take, so that they can get qualifcations and learn trades and skills and get jobs. The stick at the back is the threat of cutting off benefits. If they cant prove their looking for a job or dont attend the course then the government cuts off their benefits. Also the course is only the thing provided for the people, they still have to work to pass it, and get the qualification. The right wing attitude of "there poor because they arnt working hard, make their benefits low so that they will want to get back on the job" doesnt work properly. Under Thatcher you had what was called the poverty trap. Because without a minimum wage, sometimes the low paid jobs people were forced into were so low that it was worse off than being on benefits. You need a complex benefit system and a minimum wage to serve people best

Communist Manifesto

#2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Not to mention

#10 Free Public Education.

Liberals in the US, UK, and Canada are all socialists. Take from the people who work and give to the poor politariat.

And whats wrong with socialism exactly?

Communist Manifesto

#2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Not to mention

#10 Free Public Education.

Liberals in the US, UK, and Canada are all socialists. Take from the people who work and give to the poor politariat.

Since the proletariat evidently couldn't find suitable employment if they so wished, and I wasn't aware we forced them to concieve dozens of children each. :mad:

Communist Manifesto

#2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Not to mention

#10 Free Public Education.

Liberals in the US, UK, and Canada are all socialists. Take from the people who work and give to the poor politariat.

You make it sound as if that's a bad thing :) . The proletariat IS the working class!

What's wrong with socialism? :headbang:

Interestingly enough, my country of origin can be decuced simply by examining the symbol that sits in front of my wage statements. For reference, it's a $..

There is more than one country that uses the dollar. Foot out of mouth now


This, combined with the rest of your post, seems to indicate you are not interested in actually paying any attention to what I have to say. Either that or it just indicates an unwillingness to think, a common phenomenon in today's Left. But yes, we have progressive taxes too. That doesn't make any difference to me, since morality is not a matter of numbers.

I dont know if you noticed but under the British tax system you wouldnt be paying any tax. The first £5000 is free of tax. Thats roughly US$7500


You're not sure, and it shows. You have a right to said equipment if and only if you can exchange something of value for it, since the equipment obviously has a certain amount of value to the creator. Anything short of this is theft.

I'm not sure you understand the NHS. Everyone owns the NHS because everyone pays for it through tax. It is true the NHS is used by non-UK citizens and you could regard that as theft, but I think thats just the morality of medicine there.


We have them too. They're called the Want Ads.


I know what a Want Ad is and its not what I described. Here the goverment tries its best to keep a registery database containing all the job oppotunites in the country. It then localises the ones nearest and unemployed persons home and selects the ones that are most suitable to his or her skills (or lack of) and then sends them a letter saying "There are X, Y and Z job oppotunites in the area that the government thought you might like to apply for. If you do not have the qualifcations you can get them through X course at Y time on Z day"


Except that the government doesn't 'pay for it,' you and every other citizen in your country does, if it's tax funded. A disgusting policy.

So your saying that the many shouldnt help the few to better themselves


Yes, and have you considered that by eliminating the chance for any upward mobility to speak of completely flies in the face of the prevailing Leftist ideology which preaches ease of life for the masses?

I'd like to see exactly how you think that in Britian we have eliminated the chance for upward mobility


Why is it that none of you can grasp the concept that [i]making everyone poor doesn't help anything? I mean, Christ even if you do want to use Marginal Utility as your moral barometer, decreasing the aggregate economic stability of your entire population in order to save the few who are [i]actually poor is ridiculous. Welfare essentially advocates a sort of rule by minority, since only 12% of this country is classified as 'poor' [and yet most still have apartments and cars and toasters and things].

I dont understand how you think that the British Welfare state's aim is to make everyone poor. What we do is provide a way for those who cant achieve well under normal situations an oppotunity to do so under what you may consider an abnormal situation.


This has already been addressed, and as I said before it's not particularly relevent. If the opportunity for success is there, that doesn't mean in and of itself that everyone will reach for it. The people who choose not to take advantage of their opportunities are of no concern to me. The people who can't can always fall back on you people who like to give their money up in oder to help them.

Firstly, private charity is no where near efficient enough to deal with this problem. Secondly the oppotunity for sucsess is not there for everyone. What the British system tries to do is make it there for everyone. Everyone still has to work to suceed, but some have to work in diffrent ways, because they dont have the resorces to work in the way that eveyone else does.

What's wrong with socialism? :headbang:

Millions of Europeans seem to thrive under socialism. Is that why you're banging your head against your wall of conservatism?

Read my post again, then remove foot from mouth.

I said compare their GDP and trade figures, not the business-friendliness of the nation in question. Finland would rapidly discover that if their citizens had more money [i.e. less welfare] then the legislative foundation they've put in place for businesses would be more effective.

You said european countries' economies were so un-competitive that we had to form the EU.
I said that there are european states whose economies are, taken alone, more competitive than US' one (Finland) or at least not too faraway (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, etc).
I backed up my point with a link to an article that featured 2 top-ten ranks, out of which you (deliberately?) chose to read and quote the wrong one. Let me tell you, the right one is the "business-competitiveness" one.

As for GDP, US population is roughly 50 times Finland's, and yes, US GDP is bigger. I think it makes sense. I didn't question that, btw.

Last point... you say, if finns had more money the legislative foundation they've put in place for businesses would be more effective. It remains to be seen, but i'm afraid it won't be in the near future. Finns have a country that works, it's economically very competitive, with a great welfare state. They reached a balance that you obviously don't wanna break. They are the evidence this can be done, althought it takes an efficency and uprightness that is hard to achieve in bigger countries.

As for GDP, US population is roughly 50 times Finland's, and yes, US GDP is bigger. I think it makes sense. I didn't question that, btw.


GDP is the total ammount of money made by the country divided by total population. The point of the system was to take population into account

You make it sound as if that's a bad thing :) . The proletariat IS the working class!

Yeah! Taking money from people who work and giving it to the working class, what an injustice!

Anyway, the idea of social mobility is based more on mythology than facts. They take a few rags-to-riches stories and then make the ridiculous logical leap that all poor people have the same opportunities and have just failed to take them. Now that the poor have been universally blamed for their condition we can conclude that even though society relies on unemployment and inequality to function, it owes nothing to those at the bottom. This is not to say that social mobility is entirely a myth, it is relatively high in capitalism compared to many other systems, but it is still limited.

If we get rid of welfare, then that includes corporate welfare as well. So no more Chapter 11 Bankruptcy to prop up failed corporations. It's really the same deal: people getting money for nothing, and getting rewarded by the government for failure.

Maybe if rich people practiced what they preached then they'd have more legitimacy.

Probably this issue has already been adressed here...if it has, i apologize. Still, do you believe that some american conservatives are right when they claim that Welfare and social security beget a long-term dependency from the poorer classes on State hand-outs? Do social security recipients get acustomed to a life of inactivity and feel entitled to abstain from job-hunting? Did the Great Society end up creating two Americas?

Well, judging by the British Welfare State, which is more all encroaching than the US one, i'd say:-

For a small percentage, possibly it does, yes. Mind you, you have to really put an effort in to survive on the money they give you for being "idle"

For the vast majority, no, it's a welcome safety net.

Question is, what do you think is the most desired option? Safety net and small supply of scroungers, or no safety net?

I go for the former.

I think the way a Harvard business grad from a wealthy pedigree has failed time and time again only shows the importance and irreplaceability of a good corporate officer.
A fine and reasonable argument. I still have a horrible suspicion that blue chip companies going to be more likely to employ an imcompetent cretin from a rich family with a worthless qualification than a peasant who can actually do the job, though.
I agree with you, but I also think we can agree that long term plans are much cheaper over time than temporary fix-its.
I have absolutely no argument with that. Possibly long term solutions are overlooked in a political system where the appointed scapegoat for everything wrong in the country can't spend any longer in power than eight years?

You're not sure, and it shows. You have a right to said equipment if and only if you can exchange something of value for it, since the equipment obviously has a certain amount of value to the creator. Anything short of this is theft.

It's possibly unfair to pick up on a specific example, but assuming (heaven forfend) that your kidneys gave up tomorrow morning, would you be able to afford a dialysis machine of your very own? Or would you fall back on your medical insurance? I don't see how paying a little more tax and gaining access to a system of socialised medicine is innately inferior to paying an arm and a leg for Blue Cross. If nothing else, it's likely to be cheaper.

You missed the point. What I meant was that there are people in situations that are caused by factors beyond there control and because of this they are poor. The problem with the right wing aproch is that it says that all poor people are there because they dont work hard enough, thus to encourage them to work hard, we should make being out of work as unattractive as possible so as to encourage them back into work. This does not work, as was proved by Thatchers government. What needs to be done is to have a more complex system, not just benefits. This is what the new deal does, it works on a carrot, stick, treadmill function. The carrot being the job at the end which the government help them find by keeping a registry of all the jobs they can. The treadmill to help them get there being education, because many poor people are poor because their parents were poor and they were in a social situation where learning and education was seen as impractical and unhelpful. Thus the British government provides courses for underqualified unemployed people to take, so that they can get qualifcations and learn trades and skills and get jobs. The stick at the back is the threat of cutting off benefits. If they cant prove their looking for a job or dont attend the course then the government cuts off their benefits. Also the course is only the thing provided for the people, they still have to work to pass it, and get the qualification. The right wing attitude of "there poor because they arnt working hard, make their benefits low so that they will want to get back on the job" doesnt work properly. Under Thatcher you had what was called the poverty trap. Because without a minimum wage, sometimes the low paid jobs people were forced into were so low that it was worse off than being on benefits. You need a complex benefit system and a minimum wage to serve people best

i'm certain that not everyone who is poor is in that situation because of forces beyond their control.

just as i'm certain that not everyone is poor by choice.

No matter how someone becomes poor, we should be trying to inspire them to work, and handing out perpetual welfare is not a great way to get them working.

imho

as for there being a lack of good-paying jobs for poor people, there are many possible ways to combat this:

1)Go to school -- it's never too late to get a degree, or finish a high school diploma. You get your degree or high school diploma, and suddenly new employment opportunities are open. Loans are available for those who are short on cash.

2)Work hard at your first job, no matter how much it sucks. It's important to develop a resume, and one thing that sticks out is someone who works jobs for a very short period of time. If it's within the person's power to continue working a job (IE, they're not laid off for whatever reason), he should do so in order to help show (on the resume) that he is not a job-hopper.

3)It's hard work finding a good job... often, spendig just a few hours or a few days just won't cut it. It's an occupation in and of itself and thus deserves respect and the attention it deserves. Take the time to find a good job, spend time dropping resumes, spend time going in and shaking hands with people. At some point, such a search will pay off.

Feeling sorry for yourself (not you, of course) won't work... almost everything in life is easier to accomplish with a positive attitude.

You said european countries' economies were so un-competitive that we had to form the EU.
For the last time, this is what I said. Please read it carefully.

Examine, at your leisure, the GDP and trade statistics of, say, the United States versus any one of the welfare states in Europe. There's a reason they had to form the EU to compete with us economically.

Singularly, Finland [and, you'll notice, no one else] may be domestically more competitive than us, but none of them can hold a candle to the US in terms of international economic power, and part of this is due to the fact that--in spite of a seemingly favorable climate for business--the people just don't have the funds to take advantage of it. You're not going to have much in the way of retail sales in a country with gobs of taxes, for instance. Likewise, you're not going to have a lot of people who have accumulated the savings necessary to start a business.

I said that there are european states whose economies are, taken alone, more competitive than US' one (Finland) or at least not too faraway (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, etc).
I backed up my point with a link to an article that featured 2 top-ten ranks, out of which you (deliberately?) chose to read and quote the wrong one. Let me tell you, the right one is the "business-competitiveness" one.
See above. Reading that article, it's a bit difficult to tell exactly what they're trying to measure. By any conventional standard, China ought to be way higher on the Growth list, for instance. The article is very brief and vague; it does little to explain the criterion used to arrive at these statistics and even less to explain their implications.

I'm still not sure just what you're trying to imply with this, because study or no study the superiority of the American markets to those in any singular European state is readily apparent.

As for GDP, US population is roughly 50 times Finland's, and yes, US GDP is bigger. I think it makes sense. I didn't question that, btw.
And the population factor is also one of the reasons why it's remarkably easier to maintain such a welfare state.

Also, population is not always a barometer of GDP. India and China, while their economies are growing [and very quickly, at that], are still not quite within striking distance of the US, who has roughly a third of their populations. GDP and economic productiveness is based on the quality and demand of your products, not necessarily your population.

I also didn't say you questioned that, I was just sort of pointing out that the GDP comparison was my original point btw. You were the one that turned it into a straw man by somehow equating the domestic competitiveness of an economy to its GDP and trade statistics.

Last point... you say, if finns had more money the legislative foundation they've put in place for businesses would be more effective. It remains to be seen, but i'm afraid it won't be in the near future. Finns have a country that works, it's economically very competitive, with a great welfare state. They reached a balance that you obviously don't wanna break. They are the evidence this can be done, althought it takes an efficency and uprightness that is hard to achieve in bigger countries.
Jesus, I hate it when people trot out this tired argument. Look, you said it yourself: Finland has a lot less people than the United States. That means it's remarkably easier to maintain programs such as those they employ. Finland's population can't be more than that of Ohio alone. The mechanics of managing welfare for 300 million and managing welfare for 10 million [a very liberal estimate, since this figure assumes Finland's population has doubled from about 5 million since 1996, which I highly doubt] are wildly different.

There ARE a number of people who are social assistance that should not be, I think everyone would agree with that. However, there also ARE many who are unable to survive with their families without programs to help them.
I, for one, am on a disability pension. I have have 3 heart attacks in the last 12 years and my endurance is very limited. My pension is from work, but I also get Canada Disability Pension. I paid premiums into both and now have to take 'advantage' of having them.
I also am bothered by the people who are on any sort of social assistance who do not need to be. I include those who are totally capable of working. I've have known some people who do collect assistance and have no intention to look for work. I also know some who are on disability who also who just don't want to work.
All who are on any social assistance should be checked up on at least once every couple of years.

Karjala and Petsamo

What are Lapps like?

I'm a firm supporter of wellfare. Not 'cause I'd ever have a chance to participate in it (I'm getting close to making 6 digits a year and I don't plan to go on maternity leave any time soon...), and despite paying about 40% of my income in tax and other "social" deductions.

But I get something for my money. I live in a rather big town where I can go anywhere, at any time, without fearing that someone would want my money or my life. Because that is, in a nutshell, what welfare gives the "rich" people: Security.

If someone is comfortable with living on 600 bucks a month while sitting on his lazy butt, so be it. At least he's not going out to get those 600 bucks from my wallet at gunpoint.

And given that our police is (still, they're working on worsening it) pretty efficient, people dread trading their lazy life for one in prison.

i'm certain that not everyone who is poor is in that situation because of forces beyond their control.

just as i'm certain that not everyone is poor by choice.

No matter how someone becomes poor, we should be trying to inspire them to work, and handing out perpetual welfare is not a great way to get them working..

Im getting a little tierd of you not reading my posts. If you look at the posts you will see that not once have I suggested handing out perpetual welfare. What I have sugessted (and indeed is being done in the UK) is a complicated benefit system, which gives to those who search for a job only, finds jobs for those who have difficulty looking and provides education schemes for those under qualified.


*snip*
Feeling sorry for yourself (not you, of course) won't work... almost everything in life is easier to accomplish with a positive attitude.

I have not suggested feeling "sorry for yourself" as you put it. I have never once implied that people should do nothing and expect the state to do all the work for them. If you actually look at what I have suggested then you will see what it is I propose.

You missed the point. What I meant was that there are people in situations that are caused by factors beyond there control and because of this they are poor. The problem with the right wing aproch is that it says that all poor people are there because they dont work hard enough, thus to encourage them to work hard, we should make being out of work as unattractive as possible so as to encourage them back into work. This does not work, as was proved by Thatchers government. What needs to be done is to have a more complex system, not just benefits. This is what the new deal does, it works on a carrot, stick, treadmill function. The carrot being the job at the end which the government help them find by keeping a registry of all the jobs they can. The treadmill to help them get there being education, because many poor people are poor because their parents were poor and they were in a social situation where learning and education was seen as impractical and unhelpful. Thus the British government provides courses for underqualified unemployed people to take, so that they can get qualifcations and learn trades and skills and get jobs. The stick at the back is the threat of cutting off benefits. If they cant prove their looking for a job or dont attend the course then the government cuts off their benefits. Also the course is only the thing provided for the people, they still have to work to pass it, and get the qualification. The right wing attitude of "there poor because they arnt working hard, make their benefits low so that they will want to get back on the job" doesnt work properly. Under Thatcher you had what was called the poverty trap. Because without a minimum wage, sometimes the low paid jobs people were forced into were so low that it was worse off than being on benefits. You need a complex benefit system and a minimum wage to serve people best

i'm certain that not everyone who is poor is in that situation because of forces beyond their control.

just as i'm certain that not everyone is poor by choice.

No matter how someone becomes poor, we should be trying to inspire them to work, and handing out perpetual welfare is not a great way to get them working.

imho

as for there being a lack of good-paying jobs for poor people, there are many possible ways to combat this:

1)Go to school -- it's never too late to get a degree, or finish a high school diploma. You get your degree or high school diploma, and suddenly new employment opportunities are open. Loans are available for those who are short on cash.

2)Work hard at your first job, no matter how much it sucks. It's important to develop a resume, and one thing that sticks out is someone who works jobs for a very short period of time. If it's within the person's power to continue working a job (IE, they're not laid off for whatever reason), he should do so in order to help show (on the resume) that he is not a job-hopper.

3)It's hard work finding a good job... often, spendig just a few hours or a few days just won't cut it. It's an occupation in and of itself and thus deserves respect and the attention it deserves. Take the time to find a good job, spend time dropping resumes, spend time going in and shaking hands with people. At some point, such a search will pay off.

Feeling sorry for yourself (not you, of course) won't work... almost everything in life is easier to accomplish with a positive attitude.

OK, this is definitely a valid reason not to tell individual unemployed people that it's all someone else's fault and they should just relax at home, but I don't really think it applies to welfare policy. The individual attitude should definitely be optimism and an effort to find work. However, bringing it up in a debate about welfare seems to suggest that welfare itself is defeatist and that the poor would be better off if they were left to starve, as they would all get off their arses and take the jobs that are just waiting for them.

Avalon has already described ways that a welfare system can allow the unemployed to improve their situation, which costs more in the short term but saves in the long term.

There is more than one country that uses the dollar. Foot out of mouth now
Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

I didn't think so.

I dont know if you noticed but under the British tax system you wouldnt be paying any tax. The first £5000 is free of tax. Thats roughly US$7500
Guess who doesn't live in Britain? Me. Guess who still doesn't think tax is justified only if you do it to certain people? Me.

The government should not confer economic privilage to any class, rich or poor. Period.

I'm not sure you understand the NHS. Everyone owns the NHS because everyone pays for it through tax. It is true the NHS is used by non-UK citizens and you could regard that as theft, but I think thats just the morality of medicine there.
I understand NHS and the concepts behind it a lot better than I had ever cared to know. Please stop patronizing me by assuming I don't know what national healthcare is or how it's funded. The very fact that you would attempt to validate the NHD by arguing "Everyone owns the NHS because everyone pays for it through tax" tells me that you haven't been listening to a goddamn word I've been saying.

Taxation is not a legitimate function of government.

I know what a Want Ad is and its not what I described. Here the goverment tries its best to keep a registery database containing all the job oppotunites in the country. It then localises the ones nearest and unemployed persons home and selects the ones that are most suitable to his or her skills (or lack of) and then sends them a letter saying "There are X, Y and Z job oppotunites in the area that the government thought you might like to apply for. If you do not have the qualifcations you can get them through X course at Y time on Z day"
And I know what your registrar is and it is what I described. What are the want ads? Want ads are a registry of local, generally low-skill jobs in the area. It's the exact same goddamn thing, only my country doesn't have to steal my money to do it. The only thing that your government does for all that extra money is send you the letter, which you don't have to do if you read the ads in this country and take the initiative to actually answer them.

Basically, England's job-promotional programs are glorified High School career courses, which pretend to know what's best for you based on some highly generic survey. It didn't work when I was 15, and I doubt it will be particularly effective when I'm 45.

So your saying that the many shouldnt help the few to better themselves
Precisely. I don't think being forced to invest in some random dude is "bettering myself," but that's another issue. Giving someone money or a leg up out of goodwill is all well and good, but sending a cop 'round to my house threatening to throw me in jail if I don't is what I like to call "moral cannibalism."

I'd like to see exactly how you think that in Britian we have eliminated the chance for upward mobility
And I'd like to see exactly how you came to the conclusion that I said that. Here's my antecedant statement again, with emphasis added for clarity:

Yes, and have you considered that by eliminating the chance for any upward mobility to speak of [i.e. under Communism and most forms of Socialism, leaving aside the 'pseudocapitalism' practiced by modern Europeans] completely flies in the face of the prevailing Leftist ideology which preaches ease of life for the masses?
You haven't eliminated it, you've just made it a lot more difficult.

I dont understand how you think that the British Welfare state's aim is to make everyone poor.
I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time with this. No state aims to make everyone poor, it's merely a consequence of taxing the ever loving bejesus out of your population. Please, please, please use your head next time.

What we do is provide a way for those who cant achieve well under normal situations an oppotunity to do so under what you may consider an abnormal situation.


Firstly, private charity is no where near efficient enough to deal with this problem.
If that's the case, then tough shit. If society doesn't care enough to lend a hand to the poor, than that's obviously society's perogative now isn't it? You can't claim to be a champion of society [which most Socialists do] and then turn around to condemn it when it makes decisions you don't like. Adding taxation to the mix muddies our values because it amounts to forcing people to pay the poor's bills. Besides, if the majority of people support Welfare like you and your leftist comrades keep claiming, then it stands to reason that those same people would donate a comparable amount of money to charity if they weren't taxed for it, hmm?

Secondly the oppotunity for sucsess is not there for everyone. What the British system tries to do is make it there for everyone. Everyone still has to work to suceed, but some have to work in diffrent ways, because they dont have the resorces to work in the way that eveyone else does.
We might be talking past each other because I'm talking in strictly American terms and you seem more interested in talking about Britain, which is fine, but the circumstances surrounding these issues are slightly different from culture to culture. What works in Britain or Sweden or Norway might not work in the US for a multitude of reasons.

And in a purely capitalist society, the opportunity for sucess is there for everyone. It's also not my fault if people don't see it, refuse to see it, or fail to take advantage of it. You can shake that pity tree all day long, ain't nothin's gonna fall out.

Taxation is not a legitimate function of government.
Are there any forms of government you feel would work without funding?

Are there any forms of government you feel would work without funding?
Without funding? No. Without tax? Yes. Tax isn't the only form of funding.

When a corporation or a person makes money, it/he doesn't "earn" it by stealing from the populace, unless he happens to be a criminal. The government, in its infinite wisdom, could think of no better way to make money than to take mine. If we can put a man on the moon, we can think of a way to fund the basic necessities of society [which are a lot less than you probably think] without resorting to petty theft.

For example, there are currently about 35 million 'poor' people in this country, which is roughly 12% of our population. The government [not to mention the Democrats, socialists, and other assorted pinkos and pseudopinkos] seems to think that the remaining 88% must give up a significant share of our resources to feed and clothe that 12%, most of whom are already fed and clothed anyway, in reality. I've never been able to wrap my head around this mind bogglingly bad math.

Without funding? No. Without tax? Yes. Tax != funding.

When a corporation or a person makes money, it/he doesn't "earn" it by stealing from the populace, unless he happens to be a criminal. The government, in its infinite wisdom, could think of no better way to make money than to take mine. If we can put a man on the moon, we can think of a way to fund the basic necessities of society [which are a lot less than you probably think] without resorting to petty theft.

For example, there are currently about 35 million 'poor' people in this country, which is roughly 12% of our population. The government [not to mention the Democrats, socialists, and other assorted pinkos and pseudopinkos] seems to think that the remaining 88% must give up a significant share of our resources to feed and clothe that 12%, most of whom are already fed and clothed anyway, in reality. I've never been able to wrap my head around this mind bogglingly bad math.
So how else are they supposed to derive an income? I take it that you're opposed to nationalised industry, so presumably the only alternative is rich sponsors, who could possibly develop a certain hold over the legislature.

For example, there are currently about 35 million 'poor' people in this country, which is roughly 12% of our population. The government [not to mention the Democrats, socialists, and other assorted pinkos and pseudopinkos] seems to think that the remaining 88% must give up a significant share of our resources to feed and clothe that 12%, most of whom are already fed and clothed anyway, in reality. I've never been able to wrap my head around this mind bogglingly bad math.

OK, your total taxes are a significant share of your resources, but the taxes spent on feeding and clothing that 12% is only a small share of that.

I'm still not sure how you're suggesting the government replace taxation as a source of funds. By comparing the state to corporations it just sounds like you're advocating state-owned corporations, which I highly doubt. Do you have a specific alternative to taxation?

OK, your total taxes are a significant share of your resources, but the taxes spent on feeding and clothing that 12% is only a small share of that.

I'm still not sure how you're suggesting the government replace taxation as a source of funds. By comparing the state to corporations it just sounds like you're advocating state-owned corporations, which I highly doubt. Do you have a specific alternative to taxation?
As far as I can tell, he's just bitching about the fact that the American government chooses to squander some of the money it derives from his taxes on an underclass who could feed themselves by pimping their children and mugging people.

Taxation is not a legitimate function of government.

It seems its a legitimate function of the government of the United states , according to our constitution .

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

So how else are they supposed to derive an income? I take it that you're opposed to nationalised industry, so presumably the only alternative is rich sponsors, who could possibly develop a certain hold over the legislature.
You know what? I don't care how they derive their income. Put me in office and give me the power to actually make the changes and I'll look into it, but until that happens, solving this particular problem is not my responsibility. The country didn't levy a mandatory income tax until the first world war, so I'd imagine we found a way to work things without an income tax for our first, oh, 150 years as a nation.

Well, we did levy the occasional tax, but they weren't very intrusive, and they were only used in times of conflict [the first income tax ever levied was for the Civil War] and they generally went away after they'd outlived their usefulness.

OK, your total taxes are a significant share of your resources, but the taxes spent on feeding and clothing that 12% is only a small share of that.
I know, I'm exaggerating a little on purpose, but the underlying point as it pertains to Welfare and SSI still remains. SSI by itself is a significant share of my resources, and furthermore it's a benefit that isn't very likely to exist by the time I'm eligible for it. I will laugh my ass off once the eligble age for SS is above the average life expectancy in this country. I'll bet even at that point it will still have its advocates.

I'm still not sure how you're suggesting the government replace taxation as a source of funds. By comparing the state to corporations it just sounds like you're advocating state-owned corporations, which I highly doubt. Do you have a specific alternative to taxation?
Yeah, slash federal spending by about 90%. The vast majority of the government programs that exist today are completely useless. Once we do away with all the excess stupid shit, we'll suddenly find that we don't have to take in nearly the same amount of money to fund it all. You can't really get away with cutting taxes without making budget cuts too, as exemplified by our current administration and its irresponsible budget crisis.

It seems its a legitimate function of the government of the United states , according to our constitution .
And the Constitution could also conceivably decree the official language to be Swedish, and it could also tell us that underwear should be worn on the outside. The Consitution, as great as it is, is still fallible.

I was born poor. One of two kids to a 17 year old mother without a high school diploma. No father, and no child support, and NO welfare. I KNOW poor. And everything I have I earned. Not because someoen gave me anything, because i didn't like being poor. Back then poor was hard. And now I'm supposed to give it to someone else.

Grow up. You can't save the poor, only the poor can save themselves. And they don't need your money, they need hurdles to overcome. They need some spine and a little bit of sack.

Just because you did well it doesn't mean you can translate it into eveyone's lives. You need to be more undestanding of others, instead of going all about YOU and YOUR life and YOUR story. Your life experience isn't more valuable than everybody else's. You shouldn't be selfish to a point that you think that everyone should be like you or starve.

Just because you did well it doesn't mean you can translate it into eveyone's lives. You need to be more undestanding of others, instead of going all about YOU and YOUR life and YOUR story. Your life experience isn't more valuable than everybody else's. You shouldn't be selfish to a point that you think that everyone should be like you or starve.
Why not? If he went out and bettered his own life, that means the possibility to do this definately exists, and the fact that many people are physically able to work and don't means that not everyone is interested in this particular course of action. If someone has the means but lacks the desire to earn things for themselves, pardon me, but fuck him. With a cactus. Sideways.

Why not? If he went out and bettered his own life, that means the possibility to do this definately exists, and the fact that many people are physically able to work and don't means that not everyone is interested in this particular course of action. If someone has the means but lacks the desire to earn things for themselves, pardon me, but fuck him. With a cactus. Sideways.

Well, some people win the lottery. You can't do this without taking the opportunity, by buying a lottery ticket. Surely those who don't win the lottery are monumentally stupid for passing up such easy money.

Why not? If he went out and bettered his own life, that means the possibility to do this definately exists, and the fact that many people are physically able to work and don't means that not everyone is interested in this particular course of action. If someone has the means but lacks the desire to earn things for themselves, pardon me, but fuck him. With a cactus. Sideways.
The fact that the possibility exists does not imply that everyone has access to that opportunity. Life is unfair, and most of the times you don't end up with what you deserve.

Yes, yes it does. As for evidence, look at the poverty rate in the US. In the early 1900's it was upwards of 90%. From there it declined sharply until the Great Depression, where it went up a little bit although surprisingly little considering, and afterwards it again declined albeit a little bit slower right until Johnson implemented his Great Society, at which point it has stayed pegged around 13%.

Just because you did well it doesn't mean you can translate it into eveyone's lives. You need to be more undestanding of others, instead of going all about YOU and YOUR life and YOUR story. Your life experience isn't more valuable than everybody else's. You shouldn't be selfish to a point that you think that everyone should be like you or starve.

Selfish? Because I think what I create is mine? That my hardwork belongs to me?

The difference between us is I KNOW these people are capable of making it without charity, you don't. Your "charity" is to trap them into believeing your low opinion of them. And if you're so keen to help them then do it. Quit hanging around these boards and go do it.

No, you'd rather sit here and pontificate about what I'm doing wrong. That I'm selfish. That I need to care, or that I need to be more understanding. That I need to bend over backwards to work for them.

At least I'm honest.

Yes, yes it does. As for evidence, look at the poverty rate in the US. In the early 1900's it was upwards of 90%. From there it declined sharply until the Great Depression, where it went up a little bit although surprisingly little considering, and afterwards it again declined albeit a little bit slower right until Johnson implemented his Great Society, at which point it has stayed pegged around 13%.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or if you are for or against welfare. Merely looking at trends in the poverty rate seems far too simplistic though, for one thing the definition of poverty is subjective, and according to some definitions the poverty line is just a percentage of the average income, which makes trends over time fairly useless.

Well, some people win the lottery. You can't do this without taking the opportunity, by buying a lottery ticket. Surely those who don't win the lottery are monumentally stupid for passing up such easy money.
This is one of the most horrible straw men I've ever seen. The chances of you winning the lottery are roughly equivalent to that of being struck by lightning, last I checked. So no, this does not make one "monumentally stupid" for passing up the chance, nor is the practice of buying a lottery ticket [or the chances of winning it] anywhere near comparable to finding and getting a job.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or if you are for or against welfare. Merely looking at trends in the poverty rate seems far too simplistic though, for one thing the definition of poverty is subjective, and according to some definitions the poverty line is just a percentage of the average income, which makes trends over time fairly useless.
That's one of the things I love about the Left: they never let anything as insignificant as the facts interfere with their politics :rolleyes:

Yes, yes it does. As for evidence, look at the poverty rate in the US. In the early 1900's it was upwards of 90%. From there it declined sharply until the Great Depression, where it went up a little bit although surprisingly little considering, and afterwards it again declined albeit a little bit slower right until Johnson implemented his Great Society, at which point it has stayed pegged around 13%.

And since then we have spent over 6.5 billion dollars on entitlement programs and have a poverty rate at about 12 % .
Welfare as it has been structured is a failure . You must instill a work ethic and promote education and re-education to defeat poverty. handing out " free" cash is and has been a failure.
I am all for helping the poor . I prefer a workfare system and a greater emphasis on education and training to help people help themselves. I do not want the cycle of poverty to continue . Thats what a welfare class is , nothing but a cycle of those who feel they need not achieve if they can get paid for breathing . I want to offer a hand up not a hand out . There will allways be some in society that need help because they can not help themselves . Lets save the hand outs for those people . A society is best judged by how it treats its weakest members . Try to remember that.

On page 14 already and people are still talking about eliminating poverty?

Hasn't anyone mentioned the natural rate of unemployment yet?

On page 14 already and people are still talking about eliminating poverty?

Hasn't anyone mentioned the natural rate of unemployment yet?
Well, I'm focusing primarily on the moral implications of Welfare in the first place, 'need' be damned.

But yeah, Revasser mentioned it somewhere around page 8 or 9 I think, and I'm waiting for him to sign back in and explain it to me. I didn't have the luxury of taking an economics course in high school, so the concept is still somewhat alien to me.

On page 14 already and people are still talking about eliminating poverty?

Hasn't anyone mentioned the natural rate of unemployment yet?


Does the Welfare State encourage poverty and idleness?

Since that is the title , is that not a good thing ?

B&G, in order to get to the bottom of the full implications of Welfare, all factors need to be considered, especially the unemployment rate. Nikitas is right.

B&G, in order to get to the bottom of the full implications of Welfare, all factors need to be considered, especially the unemployment rate. Nikitas is right.

I agree to a point . A high unemployment rate that outlast the length of your unemployment insurance may contribute to the amount of people on the welfare rolls . In fact thats why its even more important to include job retraining as part of the conditions for recieving welfare. Either train for a job or look for a job or you cant have any money . Also in Pa. there is a five year life time limit for the employable to recieve welfare benifits. Every time you use it you reduce the amount of time it available to you .
Are those considered unemployable included in the cronic unemployment rate ? Or the rate that unemployment will never dip below ? Or are only those deemed employable included in the unemployment rate ?

Nikita's is that what you were reffering to ? With this question ?

.....natural rate of unemployment yet?

Beer and Guns,

It isn't a bad thing exactly but it is quite idealist. Nothing wrong with idealism of course. However, we do have to ask ourselves how much opportunity we can realistically provide.

Melkor Unchained,

The market can only sustain a certain level of employment at a given time. While growth, and thereby the ability to employ workers, is practically limitless, at any one point in time (the short-run) there is a finite number of jobs available. These jobs do not cover everyone willing to work.

This is empirically suggested by just simply looking at the statistics. If the, for example, U.S. Department of Labor claims a 5% rate of unemployment then that means 5% of the labor force wants to find a job but can't. Not only wants to, but has been actively seeking to get a job. There are a number of reasons why this is so, i.e. types of unemployment. This is where the premise I stated above comes in. Given that there are those who want a job but can't find them, and given the premise stated, then some of those who can't find a job must be out of a job because the economy cannot support them.

Now, that isn't a complete explanation. The logic is flawed in fact. The theory shores it up like this. As we employ more and more of the population, the wages are bid up as we have an ever decreasing supply of labor. As wages go up so does inflation. If we were to employ every last able worker, then inflation could be out of control.

The market, by whatever magical way it manages, corrects itself so that it doesn't employ more people than the natural rate of unemployment so that there is always a supply of workers to draw from and keep wages low.

This natural rate of unemployment is difficult to define, in fact it changes all the time. I would argue that is because the economy is also evolving and progressing through the business cycle. But anyway, that's the natural rate of unemployment.

As an aside, I wasn't speaking directly to you. I know you take up the moral aspect of these kinds of arguments and, while this raises issues about morality, it doesn't disqualify anything that you are saying. At most, it proposes a problem of fairness (maybe).

Selfish? Because I think what I create is mine? That my hardwork belongs to me?

The difference between us is I KNOW these people are capable of making it without charity, you don't. Your "charity" is to trap them into believeing your low opinion of them. And if you're so keen to help them then do it. Quit hanging around these boards and go do it.

No, you'd rather sit here and pontificate about what I'm doing wrong. That I'm selfish. That I need to care, or that I need to be more understanding. That I need to bend over backwards to work for them.

At least I'm honest.

First of all, I do help. I pay taxes. :D

Second, helping these people doesn't mean I have a "low opinion on them". I help because I can and wealth is not superiority.

Third, you're the one who's not being honest. You're saying that just because you did well without welfare (which you called "charity" btw), the others don't need it... If you're unhappy to give tax money to help the disadvantaged and if you think that "that's their problem, not mine", that's up to you. Just don't say that I'm dishonest just because I happened to disagree with you.

Nikitas: I think I understand, and the mechanism for this particular phenomenon is something I'll be most interested to discover. I start college in Winter [finally!] so I'll probably get to the bottom of this before too long, as I plan on majoring in political science, possibly with a minor in econ.

Oh, and I knew you weren't talking to me, but I just had to be the first to answer. You know how I am :p

I just read over my explanation and realized it's confusing and misleading so I am going to add this:

Do not think of natural unemployment as a type of unemployment. People are unemployed for a reason (those are the types of unemployment), but if those reasons weren't there then we encounter the problem of being only able to support a limited number of workers.

Now I haven't covered this topic in two years and I don't feel like googling it (I am very lazy), but as I remember natural unemployment was quite low, around 1-3% of the workforce.

Oh and while I'm at it I should add that employment doesn't mean easy street (well I know you know that Melkor), and so there is still the possible problem of the "working poor". That is to say those who work but still live in poverty. That's not a problem for welfare, at least in the U.S., but we did slip on to the subject of poverty in general so I figure I should mention it.

Nikitas: I think I understand, and the mechanism for this particular phenomenon is something I'll be most interested to discover. I start college in Winter [finally!] so I'll probably get to the bottom of this before too long, as I plan on majoring in political science, possibly with a minor in econ.

Congradulations, have fun with it! Which college if you don't mind me asking?

If you do take a few courses in econ I will give you two tips:

1) Learn to love graphs for the first two years, and then learn to forget them for the last two.

2) If a professor asks you what existed before money the answer is almost always barter. But that little demostration is only used to illustrate the functionality of money, so don't believe them when they say there were barter economies before money.

Congradulations, have fun with it! Which college if you don't mind me asking?

If you do take a few courses in econ I will give you two tips:

1) Learn to love graphs for the first two years, and then learn to forget them for the last two.

2) If a professor asks you what existed before money the answer is almost always barter. But that little demostration is only used to illustrate the functionality of money, so don't believe them when they say there were barter economies before money.

I'm going to OSU, which is intensily ironic, as I've been a Michigan fan for roughly 15 years. But I live so close to campus I wouldn't have to pay room and board at all, so tuition would only run me about 8 grand a year, which I think I can manage.

EDIT: But, I must confess, I'm really looking forward to taking on my fellow students [and perhaps even the professor!] when discussing politics. God knows I'm going to be quite a handful.

Having been on FORCED medical leave for over 2 years I can tell you that my family and I would be homeless without what we call in Canada Support For Independance. In Alberta we pay just enough to live on and no more. We have to have utilities included as part of our rent and live a too tiny basement suit just to have enough to survive on! A minimum wage job would pay at least $400/mo more than what I get on SFI. So don't tell me that I enjoy getting 1 cheque at the end of the month of which about 85% goes to bills and I can just get enough to feed my family!

I think the way a Harvard business grad from a wealthy pedigree has failed time and time again only shows the importance and irreplaceability of a good corporate officer.

I think the way a Harvard business grad from a wealthy pedigree gets the opportunity to fail "time and time again", shows the unfair advantage given to those who were born rich.

Also interesting how he always managed to make money off those failures. And then, when he's running for president, he points to them and says, "I'm a bidnezman!"

Those who grow up well-off are far, far more likely to be well-off in later life, is this because the working class are lazy? After all, someone born well-off would recieve the same payments to do nothing as well.
Yeah! Maybe we could create a new thread:
Does Inheritance encourage poverty and idleness?

Perhaps we should have increased the estate tax instead of abolishing it?

Before starting school I was recieving unempolyment, it wasn't even enough to pay for my rent and I had to dig into my own savings to make ends meet, and this was with my wife working full time.

I evenutally did get a job at a clinic (working with welfare/ DYFS kids ironically) which paid 11 USD. It was so bad that I decided to go back to school and get that medical degree I've always wanted.

Now I'm going to school on a government loan, when I graduate and become a resident I'll be on welfare (30,000 USD a year!) too.....

I guess this welfare system is making me lazy.....

---Originally Posted by Melkor Unchained
Not very high my ass. I lose between 20-25% of every paycheck. That's a significant amount when you're only making $150 or $200 a week: it's like kicking Monday and Tuesday in the ass. It tells me, in effect, that 20-25% of my time is more or less state sanctioned slavery: I'm not really working for my benefit during that time, but for a nameless, faceless mass of people who I will never meet nor receive so much as a thank you note from.---


I dont know what country you come from, but in Britian (which is a welfare state) the first £5000 you earn is not taxed. Then there are brackets which go up in a way that the more you pay, the more you are taxed. I think its between £5000 and £12000 your taxed 20% then between £12000 and £20000 its 30% and between £20000 and £35000 its 47%. I dont know exactly.
Yeah, '20-25% of every paycheck,' kind of smells like bullshit if this guy really is making '$150 or $200 a week.' Of course, I don't have any idea what planet, er ,country Melkor is from. I only know the tax structure in America, if he's from Zimbabwe or somewhere maybe this is true.

Interestingly enough, my country of origin can be decuced simply by examining the symbol that sits in front of my wage statements. For reference, it's a $.
You're from Australia? Canada? The Bahamas? Perhaps Fiji? That really doesn't help all that much.

I'm not even going to bother with this thread.

I am a school teacher. I have a job.

We'll start this rant with that.

I love my job, but there's something missing.

I live in a country that pays the First String QB more than me. Fine.

I also live in a country that pays a 1st term Corporal more than me.

Yeah .. that's right, kids .... a new enlistee to the United States Miilitary makes more than a Teacher.

Priiorities, eh?

Fuck teachers ..... only patriotic poor people matter.*

*Patriot Pooor People = ALL poor people.

GDP is the total ammount of money made by the country divided by total population. The point of the system was to take population into account
Well that's completely wrong. I guess then that GDP/capita would be in units of money/people^2?

Okay, I'm short on sleep and its making me a bit bitchy. But still, I hate it when conservatives lecture me in a, "You is so stupid, you no understand anythings," tone and then get their facts wrong.

" :headbang: What's wrong with socialism?" Oh, brother!

Yeah! Taking money from people who work and giving it to the working class, what an injustice!
The upper classes have incomes disproportionately large compared to the utility of their work. The lower classes have incomes disproportionately small compared to the utility of their work. The "redistribution" of income due to welfare programs and taxation is far smaller than the existing disparity between utility and income. The rich still have more than they earn and the poor workers less. How is that so effing unfair!

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Yeah, you're right. You did display the shear nationalistic arrogance of assuming that everyone would know what country you were from just because you flashed them some dollars. No one but one of my conservative countrymen could be that arrogant. Well maybe a Frenchman, but generally only in Paris :rolleyes:

What's the point of arguing?

Both sides have a philosophy behind them, whether they know it or not. Neither side is going to change their philosophy just like that.
Libertarians by nature don't care about arguments about poor people, dismissing them by quoting "voluntary charity".
Socialists by nature don't care about arguments about productivity, dismissing them by quoting all kinds of stuff (like Marginal Utility... ;) )

Good on Nikitas ( :) ) for trying to explain Economics to people, maybe it should've been done earlier in the thread. Maybe I should've done it???

And now for the final point:
There is an optimal amount of welfare. The more welfare people get, the less attractive work gets to them. That's not ideology, that's reality.
If you had the choice to go working for $200 or get welfare for $300, you'd rather stay home.

But welfare payments also do something positive. Leaving people by the wayside is not only considered wrong by the majority of the population (even in the US), it also wastes enormous amounts of human capital by condemning them to starve. Jobs are not always to be found, and if a person needs at least $50 to survive, he won't bother working for $40. There is a minimal wage underneith which cutting welfare doesn't increase the number of hours worked.

So the answer is simple: You need to find the point at which the amount of utility gained in society is the same, both when you raise welfare and when you lower it. Marginal Benefit = Marginal Cost.

Are welfare benefit equal to your previous wages good (don't laugh, Germany had something pretty damn close for a long time)? No!
Is having no welfare benefits good? No!

The truth is somewhere in between, and really you should be arguing about where exactly that point is. But that would be technical enough to put off the lot of us, including me.

When a corporation or a person makes money, it/he doesn't "earn" it by stealing from the populace, unless he happens to be a criminal.
Or Halliburton. I think you'll understand the reference, since I gather you are a fellow American. I used Occam's Razor and all that! :p

Selfish? Because I think what I create is mine? That my hardwork belongs to me?

The difference between us is I KNOW these people are capable of making it without charity, you don't. Your "charity" is to trap them into believeing your low opinion of them. And if you're so keen to help them then do it. Quit hanging around these boards and go do it.

No, you'd rather sit here and pontificate about what I'm doing wrong. That I'm selfish. That I need to care, or that I need to be more understanding. That I need to bend over backwards to work for them.

At least I'm honest.

haha! my thoughts exactly.

no one owes me a living, and i don't owe anyone a living either.

You know what? I don't care how they derive their income. Put me in office and give me the power to actually make the changes and I'll look into it, but until that happens, solving this particular problem is not my responsibility. The country didn't levy a mandatory income tax until the first world war, so I'd imagine we found a way to work things without an income tax for our first, oh, 150 years as a nation.

Yeah, people lived in squalid conditions and worked themselves to death for a pittance, while robber-barons made millions off their suffering. Unions did more to fix that problem than any act of government.

Yeah, and here in America people could go out to the frontier for a chance at real success. Or to die hard. Unfortunately I don't see any convenient frontiers. Maybe the poor people could scratch up a little dough for a junkyard spaceship to Mars?

Yeah, '20-25% of every paycheck,' kind of smells like bullshit if this guy really is making '$150 or $200 a week.' Of course, I don't have any idea what planet, er ,country Melkor is from. I only know the tax structure in America, if he's from Zimbabwe or somewhere maybe this is true.
Excuse me?!

You've obviously never had a job, have you?

I made $300 biweekly for 2 years, and it would have been upwards of $375 or even close to $400 without tax. If you have had a job, take the time to compare your 'Net Pay' versus your 'Gross Pay' next time you get a paycheck. It's every fucking bit of 20% at least

Seriously, I've never seen anything so appalingly ignorant in my life as your short string of postings here.

Okay, I'm short on sleep and its making me a bit bitchy.
No fucking shit. Go get some sleep.

Jesus, I hate it when people trot out this tired argument. Look, you said it yourself: Finland has a lot less people than the United States. That means it's remarkably easier to maintain programs such as those they employ. Finland's population can't be more than that of Ohio alone. The mechanics of managing welfare for 300 million and managing welfare for 10 million [a very liberal estimate, since this figure assumes Finland's population has doubled from about 5 million since 1996, which I highly doubt] are wildly different.

That's what I said. US apparently take and exploit the pros of being a large and populated country, but they also have to take the cons. Therefore, it's none of my business if you have trouble managing a decent welfare system. My point, from the very start, was that is possible to have competitive economy (either more or less competitive than the US' one, it's not just about charts or finland. Just competitive) and an efficient welfare system alltogether, altho I agree this might be nearly impossible in the US. Once again, not my business if you are overextended/overpopulated, plus I have to remind you that this thread's title says "welfare state", not "welfare state in the US".

Now, consider this:



Examine, at your leisure, the GDP and trade statistics of, say, the United States versus any one of the welfare states in Europe. There's a reason they had to form the EU to compete with us economically.

and this:



You were the one that turned it into a straw man by somehow equating the domestic competitiveness of an economy to its GDP and trade statistics.

I see a contradiction, don't you?
I'd leave the GDP out of the topic. After all, we are talking about developed countries with differences mainly in population. Because a good welfare state might not directly improve economy but it doesn't turn the country who puts it in place into an undeveloped one either - but that's exactly where you disagree with me, I guess.

To the one who asked about lapps, I'm sorry i forgot your name, your question is a bit vague. It's like if I asked "what are the american indians like?" :)

(actually i could have tried a reply, if I didnt have to go to work now... welfare didnt affect my efficiency, i think)

No fucking shit. Go get some sleep.

I am disappointed to see a Moderator swearing like this (and also in the post above). I thought they were supposed to ensure debate free of insults...

My view is that the Welfare State does not encourage poverty and idleness. Regarding poverty, it's quite insane to suggest it encourages poverty, when it's designed to eliminate it! The Nordic countries are a good example of this; there is virtually no poverty - quite a stark contrast even when compared to some countries that are richer than ours, which do still have widespread poverty. The ideal of collective responsibility also deters idleness.

In Britain the idea that the government's role was to protect property stopped in the 19th century, I'm shocked to find it still exsists today (albeit in a different country).

Guess who doesn't live in Britain? Me. Guess who still doesn't think tax is justified only if you do it to certain people? Me.

The government should not confer economic privilage to any class, rich or poor. Period.

I dont think you understand how tax works. If the poor earn less and are taxed less and the rich earn more and are taxed more then it makes perfect sense. The poor cant afford to pay more so thus they dont. Everyone pays what they are able to in a resonable fashion. Its unreasonable to expect the poor to pay as much as the rich as the poor cant afford to. The fact remains that people are not always poor for the simple reason that they dont work, as many people seem to believe. There are social and cultural reasons behind it as well. You dont believe me? Well do a sociology A-level and get an A and then tell me that there are not powerful social factors that keep people in poverty. Does this mean that I think that we should hand out benefits to everyone all the time. Of course not. I am saying that we need a complex benefit system to deal with those who are stuck in the social cycle of poverty. We also need to orient our education system to deal with it at the same time.


I understand NHS and the concepts behind it a lot better than I had ever cared to know. Please stop patronizing me by assuming I don't know what national healthcare is or how it's funded. The very fact that you would attempt to validate the NHD by arguing "Everyone owns the NHS because everyone pays for it through tax" tells me that you haven't been listening to a goddamn word I've been saying.

Taxation is not a legitimate function of government.

Ok, so think of a better way for government to be funded. And while you may not think tax is a fair way to get money by the government, the system is fair if you accept it is. Everyone pays for it through tax thus everyone can use it. This dispells your idea that people do not have the right to things they didnt pay for which is what you put in you post earlier


And I know what your registrar is and it is what I described. What are the want ads? Want ads are a registry of local, generally low-skill jobs in the area. It's the exact same goddamn thing, only my country doesn't have to steal my money to do it. The only thing that your government does for all that extra money is send you the letter, which you don't have to do if you read the ads in this country and take the initiative to actually answer them.

Taxation is not stealing money. Taxation is paying for the government to run. You pay tax and in return you get an education system, a health service, public transport (which is now in the UK at least part public part private, its confusing) and benefits when you are unable to work for yourself. Taxation is only unfair if the government doesnt give you anything back. And if you had read my post, you would see that the government does encorage people to look through the adds themselves, by cutting off benefits to all those who cant prove they are looking for work.


Basically, England's job-promotional programs are glorified High School career courses, which pretend to know what's best for you based on some highly generic survey. It didn't work when I was 15, and I doubt it will be particularly effective when I'm 45.

Funny. Which of our contries is experiancing a record low unemployment for almost a century. Which of our countries is experincing sustainable levels of economic growth. You may think they dont work but they clearly do.


Precisely. I don't think being forced to invest in some random dude is "bettering myself," but that's another issue. Giving someone money or a leg up out of goodwill is all well and good, but sending a cop 'round to my house threatening to throw me in jail if I don't is what I like to call "moral cannibalism."

Tax does not just go to benefits and welfare. It also goes to defence (and frankly you need a massive tax to support that vastly oversized army you have) public transport, education etc as I said. This is a problem with many Americans. Narrow mindedness. You assume that all tax is for is for benefits and welfare. Its not.


And I'd like to see exactly how you came to the conclusion that I said that. Here's my antecedant statement again, with emphasis added for clarity:

You haven't eliminated it, you've just made it a lot more difficult.

I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time with this. No state aims to make everyone poor, it's merely a consequence of taxing the ever loving bejesus out of your population. Please, please, please use your head next time.

You havent sucessfully proved that the UK's tax system is making everyone poorer. Espically since we are experancing a rapid wage rise above inflation, if anything we are all getting richer


If that's the case, then tough shit. If society doesn't care enough to lend a hand to the poor, than that's obviously society's perogative now isn't it? .

Once again you misread. I said private charity is not nearly EFFICIENT enough. There is no private charity in existance that could deal with an entire countries welfare needs. Be vaugly realistic next time.


Adding taxation to the mix muddies our values because it amounts to forcing people to pay the poor's bills. Besides, if the majority of people support Welfare like you and your leftist comrades keep claiming, then it stands to reason that those same people would donate a comparable amount of money to charity if they weren't taxed for it, hmm?.

Once again, tax is NOT just used to fund welfare. Many wealthy people would doubtless not donate to charity and if they wernt taxed, the rich poor divide would just get wider and wider. This way you can vaguely control it and give everone equality of oppotunity, which is not what exists in every society


And in a purely capitalist society, the opportunity for sucess is there for everyone. It's also not my fault if people don't see it, refuse to see it, or fail to take advantage of it. You can shake that pity tree all day long, ain't nothin's gonna fall out.

NO ITS NOT. There ARE social and cultural factors that mean it is not possible for certian people to suceed in the mannar that is accived by many others. Does that mean we hand out benefits to all of them to keep them afloat. No of course not. What it does mean is we try and break down those social factors throught the use of not only benefits but also our education system and other state powers. Ignorence of socity is something the far right is often gulity of, because as Magret Thatcher fameously said "there is no such thing as society"

Ignorence of socity is something the far right is often gulity of, because as Magret Thatcher fameously said "there is no such thing as society"
I think Melkor is a few stages beyond the far right...

Excuse me?!

You've obviously never had a job, have you?

I made $300 biweekly for 2 years, and it would have been upwards of $375 or even close to $400 without tax. If you have had a job, take the time to compare your 'Net Pay' versus your 'Gross Pay' next time you get a paycheck. It's every fucking bit of 20% at least

Seriously, I've never seen anything so appalingly ignorant in my life as your short string of postings here.

All that proves is that your tax system is unfair, not tax itself. That ammount of money should be covered in the tax free bracket.

Probably this issue has already been adressed here...if it has, i apologize. Still, do you believe that some american conservatives are right when they claim that Welfare and social security beget a long-term dependency from the poorer classes on State hand-outs? Do social security recipients get acustomed to a life of inactivity and feel entitled to abstain from job-hunting? Did the Great Society end up creating two Americas?

*****

Most Republicans are Christian/hypocrites! Republicans believe in oppresing and enslaving the poor. They are a bunch of greedy buzzards, that only care about their elite circle of friends. They are a gang of selfish, arrogant, ruthless, corrupt, unscrupulus, bold faced lying and double dealing thieves. I hope this answers your question. And the Democrats aren't all that better. It's time for one the 3rd Parties to take over the reigns. Both the Peace and Justice Party or the Constitution Party would do a magnificent job. Have a nice day or join the Revolution, whatever might come first! P.S. No Libertarians (Anarchy Party) please. That would be even worse than what we have at presnt.

Beer and Guns,

It isn't a bad thing exactly but it is quite idealist. Nothing wrong with idealism of course. However, we do have to ask ourselves how much opportunity we can realistically provide.

Most of what I posted about Pennsylvania and workfare comes to us from the Republican party and welfare reform . I have never heard them called Idealist before :D Usually names that would get you banned are mentioned when you listen to description of their policy toward " poor" people . :D

But when compared to some of what I have read in this thread..they can be considered almost communist ... :D

I dont think you understand how tax works. If the poor earn less and are taxed less and the rich earn more and are taxed more then it makes perfect sense. The poor cant afford to pay more so thus they dont. Everyone pays what they are able to in a resonable fashion. Its unreasonable to expect the poor to pay as much as the rich as the poor cant afford to.
What is it I said about patronizing me? Oh yeah: stop doing it. Now.. I may be very abrasive, but I do not go around claiming my opponent has no knowledge of what a progressive tax is or that it's employed by the US and Britain. We've already been over this. You're falling into the all to common trap of repeating yourself as opposed to putting forth new arguments. You described the same tax system not but a few pages ago, and I acknowledged that we do the same thing in this country.

That said, this reiteration proves that you're not listening, which I can't say is too surprising. By allowing poor people to pay less, you are conferring economic privilege on them by allowing them a greater share of their life's work. This should not happen. Period.

The fact remains that people are not always poor for the simple reason that they dont work, as many people seem to believe. There are social and cultural reasons behind it as well. You dont believe me? Well do a sociology A-level and get an A and then tell me that there are not powerful social factors that keep people in poverty.
Care to name some of thse factors or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Intelligent people, when they debate, back up their points by offering validation of their statements. Name some of these factors and I'll be happy to discuss them with you, but short of that what have we got to talk about?

Does this mean that I think that we should hand out benefits to everyone all the time. Of course not. I am saying that we need a complex benefit system to deal with those who are stuck in the social cycle of poverty. We also need to orient our education system to deal with it at the same time.
Because we all know that the solution to any problem is to create more bureaucracy and to steal more money. I'll say this one more time: If you'd like to form an orginization with the attributes you've described, more power to you. Don't take from me to do it.

Ok, so think of a better way for government to be funded.
This has already been addressed. Please take the time to read my posts before responding to them: this is twice now we've backtracked over ideas that have been discussed at least once before. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

And while you may not think tax is a fair way to get money by the government, the system is fair if you accept it is.
Ridiculous. I might, through some extensive degree of brainwashing, find that cutting off both my legs for no apparent reason is 'fair,' but that don't fucking make it so, now does it? One could conceivably convince their population that labor camps are 'fair,' but that don't make it so either.

Besides, I didn't say it wasn't fair, I said it wasn't legitimate or moral. If you're going to challenge someone's ideas, it's a good idea to use the correct terminology.

Everyone pays for it through tax thus everyone can use it. This dispells your idea that people do not have the right to things they didnt pay for which is what you put in you post earlier
But what about your precious lower tax bracket that isn't taxed at all? Aren't they getting something for nothing?

But I digress. In this country, I don't forsee me taking advantage of Educational-oriented property tax funds, since I'm out of High School. I also don't see myself collecting Social Security [or it existing by the time I'm 65], Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, subsidized housing, farm subsidies or just about any other tax funded program you care to name. So no, not everyone can use it; just the few who happen to be eligible. Right now, Congress is using my money to do things like regulate Wool and Mohair prices, it's paying them to regulate the price of honey [since we can all remember when the American economy was brought to great peril by wild fluctuations in the price of honey] and it's funding a war in the Middle East that will cause ten problems for us for every one it solved. So no, I'm not receiving anything for my income tax money most of the time.

Taxation is not stealing money.
Bullshit.
steal
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I don't remember being asked. Therefore, it's theft. The "right" conferred upon the government to do this by the populace doesn't quite count as far as I'm concerned. If I'm going to give permission for something of mine to be taken, that's an action that can only be undertaken personally. Society can't just come along and say "It's OK for you to steal this guy's money because we say so," because that's not my permission now is it?

Taxation is paying for the government to run. You pay tax and in return you get an education system, a health service, public transport (which is now in the UK at least part public part private, its confusing) and benefits when you are unable to work for yourself.
Again, you're backpedaling here. This has already been discussed, and my answer [which, by the way has received no constructive reply; only more parroting of your above statement] sounded something like this:

Theft doesn't suddenly not become theft if the money is put to a specific use: if I stole a quarter of your paycheck and paved some street with the money, I'd still be arrested, and depending on the amount I'd probably have some fairly serious charges brought against me. If I stole the same amount that the government steals every day, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. I am not particularly thrilled with the idea that certain people are allowed to do this just because they happen to work on Capitol Hill. Governments have a hard time representing the people when their code of ethics is completely different than what is acceptable to us. I can understand some of the more sensitive functions of the government remaining outside the pervue of the average citizen, but this is taking it too far.
In fairness, I wasn't talking to you at the time, but damn if I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over again. I figured a quick copy/paste might do something to salvage the tatters of sanity I still possess after reading this intellectually tedious post of yours.

Taxation is only unfair if the government doesnt give you anything back.
Like Welfare?

And if you had read my post, you would see that the government does encorage people to look through the adds themselves, by cutting off benefits to all those who cant prove they are looking for work.
And that changes..... what? Oh yeah: nothing. Try again.

Funny. Which of our contries is experiancing a record low unemployment for almost a century. Which of our countries is experincing sustainable levels of economic growth. You may think they dont work but they clearly do.
Ummm... both of us? Our unemployment is fairly low at present, if what I've been reading is true, which it might not be. If solving unemployment and encouraging economic growth were so simple as sending letters to your citizens, somehow I think we'd have seen economic trends develop very differently in the last 50 or so years. It's not that simple, and you know it.

I hope.

Tax does not just go to benefits and welfare. It also goes to defence (and frankly you need a massive tax to support that vastly oversized army you have) public transport, education etc as I said. This is a problem with many Americans. Narrow mindedness. You assume that all tax is for is for benefits and welfare. Its not.
I never said that all of my tax dollars go to these things, and I must admit I'm finding your comments increasingly exasperating. I'm trying to focus mainly on tax funded wealth distribution programs [since its sort of....you know... the topic], leaving aside for now the other fucntions of tax where I can help it. Context man, context.

You havent sucessfully proved that the UK's tax system is making everyone poorer.
More tax means less money in your pocket on payday. Do I need to draw you a picture? Any tax system makes the people slightly 'poorer,' in aggregate.

Espically since we are experancing a rapid wage rise above inflation, if anything we are all getting richer
Straw man [surprise, surprise]. Wages, unless they're a result of new laws enacted by the government [which may or may not be the case in Britain at the moment] are generally functions of the market, not necessarily of regulation. Wages in America have been going up [though not as high as cost of living in many places], but increasing wages doesn't always go hand in hand with more wealth, as other factors need to be taken into account as well: things like spending habits and cost of living.

It's funny to see you accuse me of being too simplistic and then turn around and claim higher wages = more money. There are many more factors at work than you appear to be aware of.

Once again you misread. I said private charity is not nearly EFFICIENT enough. There is no private charity in existance that could deal with an entire countries welfare needs. Be vaugly realistic next time.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Foot, meet mouth. (http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina_facts.html) Again.

NO ITS NOT. There ARE social and cultural factors that mean it is not possible for certian people to suceed in the mannar that is accived by many others. Does that mean we hand out benefits to all of them to keep them afloat. No of course not. What it does mean is we try and break down those social factors throught the use of not only benefits but
also our education system and other state powers.
I'm still not hearing jsut what these social factors are. I'm not saying they don't exist, but every time I get into arguments like this with the left, they throw these "social factors" at me without bothering to name just what they are and how they came about. It's a vague, amorphous term used to 'justify' fallacious arguments when the person making them runs out of ammo. Name them, or get out of my face with that shit.

Ignorence of socity is something the far right is often gulity of, because as Magret Thatcher fameously said "there is no such thing as society"
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, and society can't think or formulate policy because this race does not possess what one might call a 'hive mind.' You cannot think for another man any more than you can digest his food for him. She was right to a point, although the term "society" is a necessary one in today's linguistic chaos.

Special rights should not be granted to people solely on virtue of membership in a certain group: society should not have the power to take my money because it wants to anymore than it should be able to take my home or my life.

As usual, someone else has already said this better than me. Observe:

" Any group or "collective," large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free associationand free trade. (By "legitimate," I mean: noncriminal and freely joined, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)
For instance, the right of an industrial concern to engage in business is derived from the right of its owners to invest their money in a productive venture--from their right to hire employees--from the right of the employees to sell their services--from the right of all those involved to produce and to sell their products--from the right of the customers to buy (ornot to buy) these products. Every link of the complex chain of contractual relationships rests on individual rights , individual choices, individual agreements. Every agreement is delimited, specified and subject to certain conditions, that is, dependent upon mutual trade to mutual benefit.
This is true of all legitimate groups or associations in a free society: partnerships, business concerns, professional associations, labor unions (volunatry ones), political parties, etc. It also applies to all agency agreements: the right of one man to act for or represent another or others is derived from the rights of those he representsand is delegated to him by their voluntary choice, for a specific, delimited purpose--in the case of a lawyer, a business representative, a labor union delegate, etc.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.
The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others--that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please--and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.
Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine--and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine lies on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like "The Divine Right of Kings"--or in the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart fom and superior to the sum of its individual members."
--Ayn Rand, 'Collectivized "Rights"', June 1963

"I don't remember being asked. Therefore, it's theft. The "right" conferred upon the government to do this by the populace doesn't quite count as far as I'm concerned. If I'm going to give permission for something of mine to be taken, that's an action that can only be undertaken personally. Society can't just come along and say "It's OK for you to steal this guy's money because we say so," because that's not my permission now is it?"


So, you are against all tax? Including to fund the police?

Jesus. Didn't I already answer this?! Like, three times?

YES, for the last time. The police, once the rest of our bullshit programs are cut [the War on Drugs and the War in Iraq alone would almost be enough] can easily find funding from other sources. Ever wonder what happens to parking ticket fines and court costs and shit like that?

I don't see how it's the state's place to take away your right to freedom through the police though :confused:

I don't see how it's the state's place to take away your right to freedom through the police though :confused:
Because initiating force upon other citizens is not excersizing "freedom," it's using brute force to get what you want. The police exist because my fist's rights end where your nose begins, and thats the way it should be in any country that wants to call itself "free."

Again, more wanton strawmanning from the left. You guys are really good at that. That said, police can take away our freedoms if it's poorly handled, such as the Gestapo in Nazi Germany or the KGB in Soviet Russia.

I don't see how it's the state's place to take away your right to freedom through the police though :confused:

If you violate the rights of another by committing crime against them, then you forfeit your right to freedom, among others...

So the entire gov't should go to prison for theft by taxation! :p

Ever wonder what happens to parking ticket fines and court costs and shit like that?

Cui Bono? :D