NationStates Jolt Archive

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

I like you more and more with every post...:)

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

And you write down the ages old fallacy of every single individual on welfare being a lazy moocher.

:rolleyes:

I prefer to say: "Welfare is the opiate of the masses." That way, I can poke fun at Marx AND show my distaste for the welfare-state. :p

Seriously, though. It's not that everyone on welfare is lazy. It's just that the public ignores the poor because they think, "well, we DO have welfare, so it's not that bad". People are "drugged" into thinking that welfare is the solution to the problem, and in doing so are blinded by the reality of welfare--which is that it is inefficient and ineffective.

And you write down the ages old fallacy of every single individual on welfare being a lazy moocher.

:rolleyes:

It still compels those who recieve it to be apathetic, and be payed in place of working. There is outcry if an aristocrat does not work, yet not so if one doesnot work on welfare money....:rolleyes: And we are beyond prejudices are we?

You give cocaine a bad name. Shame on you!

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.
Welfare isn't cocaine for the masses. Cocaine causes measurable chemical changes in the brain which make it harder to quit. Welfare is often used for a short period of time by people who are in a tough financial situation. My family got welfare for a year when my dad got sick. After they got their money situation straight my folks quit welfare and bought a new house keeping the old one as a rental property.

Some people seem to be unable or unwilling to get off of welfare. That can be fixed by tying welfare to work (even at a minimum wage job) or schooling and providing services like child daycare so that welfare recipients can go ahead and look for work.

If a person is unable to work, they should get welfare for life. If a person is unwilling, let him starve.

And you write down the ages old fallacy of every single individual on welfare being a lazy moocher.

:rolleyes:

And he never said that. What he said is that the "system encourages" people not attempt to advance. My family and I were on various public support programs when I was out of work. The levels that are set actually discourage people from advancing too far by taking away benefits at the point that one is about to get back on thier feet, thereby pushing them back.

My example: We were getting food stamps. During this time I'ld managed to save enough to pay off our next years property taxes and start reducing our debts. Since I did that, they removed the food stamps which has since reduced my savings to the point it will be a struggle to pay our taxes and have stopped reducing our debt level . Now they're willing to give us food stamps again.

Yeah, really, sometimes welfare is necessary, at least if you want to give capitalists free rein over the economy elsewhere. It's hoplessly unrealistic to expect people to go weeks without eating in times of high unemployment or recession.

Get it right Serapindal - it's "the opiate of the masses"

The welfare system has a lot of flaws, no question, but if you've ever needed it, then you're glad it's there. Serapindal, The Blessed Chris, it's pretty fucking obvious that you've never needed it--that's why you're able to talk out of your ass about it.

Kecibukia--you've had experience with the system, and know its flaws firsthand, but a question--even with the flaws, are you better off with it or without it? I've never been on welfare, but I have been on food stamps (briefly) and my daughter has been on the state medical system more than once, and while I'd rather not have needed the assistance, I was sure glad it was there when I did.

You know, usually on subjects of this type, I say something like "I hope those of you badmouthing the system never need it" because I don't want to wish bad circumstances on anyone. But you know what? If having to go to the government for a handout will teach you a lesson, then so be it. Eat nothing but government cheese for a month and then talk shit about how welfare is the cocaine for the masses.

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

right on

we need to find a way to keep able-bodied and -minded people from learning to depend on the government to do everything for them... so that they learn to support themselves.

on the other hand imo we need to care for those who cannot support themselves.

Yeah, really, sometimes welfare is necessary, at least if you want to give capitalists free rein over the economy elsewhere. It's hoplessly unrealistic to expect people to go weeks without eating in times of high unemployment or recession.
They can always eat the middle class.

No fools,welfare is the methadone of the masses.and methadone is the heroin of the masses

No, No, No, No, No.

Welfare is not the problem.

It is how you spend the money, and what programs you employ.

Welfare is not a bad thing - but like anything else, it can be done in a very bad way.

The US discovered that if you warehouse poor people in huge apartment blocks, it causes generation-long social problems with achievement, drugs, crime, and isolation from society. That's why the Federal government tore them down in the mid-1990s and changed the housing program to avoid the "tenement block" or "projects" approach.

It would appear that the French went down the same road in the 1970s with their suburban projects - only they didn't wake up in the 1990s - they kept going until we had the riots.

Note that the US didn't solve the problem completely, but at least we've learned not to make things worse. The French could take a page from that lesson - distribute the poor more evenly among your population and there is better opportunity and fewer problems.

Don't just say, "welfare sucks". It's not that simple.

I agree... but for rather different reasons, I think.

So far as I'm concerned, the welfare state is another wasteful capitalist industry, this time in appeasement. It's a sell-out, a stagnent compromise that stunts revolutionary progress.

From the other side, I just... the mind boggles. You know that there's always going to be at least some unemployment in a modern capitalist market economy, eh, and yet the unfortunate sods who have to make up the numbers should be left to die? But then someone else will have to make up the numbers, and, eventually, it'll be you. Then you'll either beg for welfare or fight for progress.

No, No, No, No, No.

Welfare is not the problem.

It is how you spend the money, and what programs you employ.

Welfare is not a bad thing - but like anything else, it can be done in a very bad way.

The US discovered that if you warehouse poor people in huge apartment blocks, it causes generation-long social problems with achievement, drugs, crime, and isolation from society. That's why the Federal government tore them down in the mid-1990s and changed the housing program to avoid the "tenement block" or "projects" approach.

It would appear that the French went down the same road in the 1970s with their suburban projects - only they didn't wake up in the 1990s - they kept going until we had the riots.

Note that the US didn't solve the problem completely, but at least we've learned not to make things worse. The French could take a page from that lesson - distribute the poor more evenly among your population and there is better opportunity and fewer problems.

Don't just say, "welfare sucks". It's not that simple.
This is one of the best comments I've ever read of yours. Well done, sir.

Cocaine is fun, more cocaine and welfare for all!

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

Assuming that welfare is like cocaine and the government is like a cocaine dealer...

What is welfare but a money transfer? Welfare is nothing more special than money.

What is the government but the agency that provides the money transfer?

What are wages and investment returns but money transfers?

What are corporations but agencies that provide those transfers?

Therefore skilled labor, unskilled labor, and investors are cocaine addcits and corporations are the drug dealers.

Naturally you woudn't say that welfare money is different from earned money so that only welfare money is truly cocaine. If you argued that then you would be stating that welfare money is more addictive than earned money. Does a janitor, a CEO, or an investor prize their due compensation less than a welfare recipient? I doubt it.

Kecibukia--you've had experience with the system, and know its flaws firsthand, but a question--even with the flaws, are you better off with it or without it? I've never been on welfare, but I have been on food stamps (briefly) and my daughter has been on the state medical system more than once, and while I'd rather not have needed the assistance, I was sure glad it was there when I did.



As the system stands and the level that we were able to utilize it, I'ld almost lean towards better not having it because it does discourage improvement (excepting the medical). We never recieved money enough to really help w/ the bills and the foodstamps were taken away when I started earning enough to break even and start paying off a few debts hence putting us back in debt.

The system needs to be fixed, not removed.

My concept is that it should be used as a safety net, not a safety blanket.

This is one of the best comments I've ever read of yours. Well done, sir.
I've made that comment extensively on the Riots In France thread, but it was largely ignored.

Money is not a guarantee. Spend money on weapons, and you won't necessarily find them useful. Spend money on housing, and you might destroy an entire generation of people without firing a shot.

You can even pass a law, or regulation - and spend NO money - and do damage.

More, more, more is not always the answer. Doing it with some thought is the answer.

I agree... but for rather different reasons, I think.

So far as I'm concerned, the welfare state is another wasteful capitalist industry, this time in appeasement. It's a sell-out, a stagnent compromise that stunts revolutionary progress.

From the other side, I just... the mind boggles. You know that there's always going to be at least some unemployment in a modern capitalist market economy, eh, and yet the unfortunate sods who have to make up the numbers should be left to die? But then someone else will have to make up the numbers, and, eventually, it'll be you. Then you'll either beg for welfare or fight for progress.

or get off my ass and get a job. people should not be entitled to other people's money; we should work to earn our own.

and i'm sick of hearing the defeatist "there's no way for me to get ahead" argument. if that's a person's attitude, he'll never succeed.

Marx and Engels have given lazy people justification for being lazy: vote for the politician (or political system) that will allow you to be lazy and still make a living... off of others' hard work and ingenuity.

As the system stands and the level that we were able to utilize it, I'ld almost lean towards better not having it because it does discourage improvement (excepting the medical). We never recieved money enough to really help w/ the bills and the foodstamps were taken away when I started earning enough to break even and start paying off a few debts hence putting us back in debt.

The system needs to be fixed, not removed.

My concept is that it should be used as a safety net, not a safety blanket.I agree completely. The problem with statements like the one that started this thread is that it assumes that the average welfare recipient is a slacker who's looking to mooch off the system--it assumes that Reagan didn't just pull the Cadillac-driving-welfare-queen out of his ass. The fact is that most welfare recipients are just trying to get back on their feet.

Part of the problem with the system is that since the people in charge have cast it in such a negative light, the system has been rigged to serve as a punishment rather than as a help. You ran into that. So have I. But the only way for the system to continue to be used as a political whipping boy is if it doesn't work well, and since the people in charge want a whipping boy, well, you see where that goes.

Deep Kimchi has the right idea here, I think--and I know it's odd to see me write those words. :D In fact, the system he describes has been used in the US in some urban areas with great success. Integrate lower income people into areas with better economic standards, and they do better as a result.

or get off my ass and get a job. people are entitled to nothing; we should work for it.

communism sucks

There are times when not everyone can get a job.
There are some people who cannot work for medical or physical reasons.
At any time, there will always be a given percentage of people who need aid.

Provision must therefore be made for them.

So the question is not whether to do it or not, but how.

It's the how that has been screwed up in the past.

Yes, ordinarily, people are only entitled to what they work for. A man drowning in the middle of the ocean has no right to life - but if a man in a boat is nearby, that man has an obligation to help.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in Communism or Chrisitanity or your own self-interest - there is long term benefit in helping each other.

Because you yourself may one day need the help.

There are times when not everyone can get a job.
There are some people who cannot work for medical or physical reasons.
At any time, there will always be a given percentage of people who need aid.

Provision must therefore be made for them.

So the question is not whether to do it or not, but how.

It's the how that has been screwed up in the past.

Yes, ordinarily, people are only entitled to what they work for. A man drowning in the middle of the ocean has no right to life - but if a man in a boat is nearby, that man has an obligation to help.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in Communism or Chrisitanity or your own self-interest - there is long term benefit in helping each other.

Because you yourself may one day need the help.

fine, i get that. people occasionally face crises and may need help for a few months or whatever.

i'm aiming more at the people who remain on welfare and don't look for work (and are able to work).

I agree completely. The problem with statements like the one that started this thread is that it assumes that the average welfare recipient is a slacker who's looking to mooch off the system--it assumes that Reagan didn't just pull the Cadillac-driving-welfare-queen out of his ass. The fact is that most welfare recipients are just trying to get back on their feet.

Part of the problem with the system is that since the people in charge have cast it in such a negative light, the system has been rigged to serve as a punishment rather than as a help. You ran into that. So have I. But the only way for the system to continue to be used as a political whipping boy is if it doesn't work well, and since the people in charge want a whipping boy, well, you see where that goes.

Deep Kimchi has the right idea here, I think--and I know it's odd to see me write those words. :D In fact, the system he describes has been used in the US in some urban areas with great success. Integrate lower income people into areas with better economic standards, and they do better as a result.

I remember walking into the unemployment office for the first time, the people behind the counters were rude and very unhelpful. I don't think I've ever felt lower than when I had to go there. The best help I got there was from the Vet. Reps.

Dept. of Human services and the Health Dept were mixed. They were never rude but the quality of service varied from being completely incompetant to extremely helpful.

Social welfare programs available to capable adults who refuse to work erode personal responsibility and foster a dependancy class of sub-citizens.
For several generations people have been raised in homes of parents on welfare, and believe that life in America amounts to little more than waiting for next month's suckfest on Uncle Sam's teat. For many victims, the shirking of personal responsibility and independance is learned from an early age, and passed along to the next generation. It's a tragic situation, and "bad" or "good", it's not as simple as "cut them off" or "give 'em more money".
I think people who cannot possibly provide for their own care should be helped in a civilized society, but subsidizing a dependant lifestyle is a bit like passifist slavery (if you believe that for many the dependant lifestyle is a learned condition).

Often forgotten amid more sensational debates on welfare is corporate welfare.
This is an equal (if not greater) tragdedy, as it directly distorts the market, discourages competition and results in shittier products and fewer choices.

Both corporate and social welfare need to be addressed and dealt with rationally. Let's hope for our own sake, and the sake of our children that we as a society can do so rationall, and soon.

Social welfare programs available to capable adults who refuse to work erode personal responsibility and foster a dependancy class of sub-citizens.
For several generationspeople have been raised in homes of parents on welfare, and believe that life in America amounts to little more than waiting for next month's suckfest on Uncle Sam's teat.

You have any evidence to support that such a class of people even exist?

I remember walking into the unemployment office for the first time, the people behind the counters were rude and very unhelpful. I don't think I've ever felt lower than when I had to go there. The best help I got there was from the Vet. Reps.

Dept. of Human services and the Health Dept were mixed. They were never rude but the quality of service varied from being completely incompetant to extremely helpful.I know the feeling--those places are brutal, especially the employment office. I've been lucky for the last three years or so, though I'm currently digging out of a hole from moving this summer, and I hope I don't have to go through that again, but I know I'm only a job loss away from it, and that's always on my mind in this economy.

fine, i get that. people occasionally face crises and may need help for a few months or whatever.

i'm aiming more at the people who remain on welfare and don't look for work (and are able to work).

You can create people like that by housing them in huge housing projects in the worst areas (in the US in the inner city, in France in the remote suburbs).

This was done because a) it was cheap, b) it kept those "rotten people" away from everyone else, and c) no one had the foresight to see that bad things would happen.

Isolate people long enough from the rest of society, and they become apathetic. It's human nature - it happens to EVERYONE that goes through the experience. Fighting apathy under those conditions is nearly impossible for most people. Then the descent into drugs and crime begins...

You can't just house someone in a concrete tower, hand them a check, and say, "in three months get a job".

or get off my ass and get a job. people should not be entitled to other people's money; we should work to earn our own.

and i'm sick of hearing the defeatist "there's no way for me to get ahead" argument. if that's a person's attitude, he'll never succeed.

communism sucks

But not everyone can. Not just those who aren't able of mind/body. I can't believe that people can be so harsh without bothering to understand a situation. You don't just wade into a fight swinging a baseball bat without knowing why the fight is going on. The random reference to communism only deepens your appearance of ignorance. That's ignorance, not idiocy (as yet), so don't get huffy.

Unemployment isn't caused by laziness. SURELY you understand that? You just can't be entering this debate, having an opinion on this matter, without appreciating that! You can't get a job if there isn't one. You can't get a job if someone else got there first. If you didn't get there first, you should just be dismissed as a self-pitying drain and left to die?

As to the notion of your money, peh, how much you have is rarely defined by how hard you work. There's no magic formula, much as many people might like to think there is. If the powers that be decide to give some money to an out of work fellow, well, they also decide to give you -working- some. You don't decide how much you get, and you damn well don't decide how much anyone else gets.

Help is good.

But have you ever spent time with people for whom collecting welfare is a way of life?

People whose expectations are so low, that the little they get is OK with them?

People who will take any amount of welfare, as long as they don't have to work for it?

People who spend their welfare money on drugs and alcohol and gambling, instead of clothing for their children, or even for themselves?

I have, and its pretty disgusting.

It should be a temporary solution, not a lifelong dependency.

Anyone might need help, but some people really do fit the stereotype. :(

It should be a temporary solution, not a lifelong dependency.

Anyone might need help, but some people really do fit the stereotype. :(

That's because the program is designed to make them dependent (intentionally or accidentally).

The program needs to be changed - but not eliminated.

Yeah, okay, some people are disenfranchised and choose not to contribute much despite being able to (though some of the productive energy they're freely granted by welfare goes back into the system when they do crazy things like buy food with it)... but it's hardly an issue as big as the rage directed at it by testosterone-without-a-cause. Seriously, a handfull of people in X-millions, draining a tiny portion of others' energy, and those who despise them for it are usually perfectly happy with multi-national corporations being the ones that generate the involved wealth.

It is this sort of thing that leaves people jaded and disinclined to contribute in the first place.

Besides, welfare serves a very important function, aside from being a plot by those commie democrats to attack the righteous capitalist élites who are just trying to achieve the American dream. How long do you think the poor would be singing capitalism's praises if they were at the mercy of a completely "free market"?

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.
Wow. So many generalizations, I cannot count. Back to the "oh, they're just lazy" argument. A friend of mine became homeless and impoverished because of things completely beyond her control. She was a biology professor at Harvard University and a damn good one, too. But she had what was later found to be bipolar. Her doctor misdiagnosed her as being depressed and prescribed medication to her that had the opposite intended effect. She was asked to leave teaching because of her erratic behavior and eventually she ended up on the streets through no fault of her own. Is she just some "welfare queen"?

All I hear from people like Serapindal is: "People without money deserve to starve and die".

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

Ignorance (of the people on welfare) is bliss.

Besides, welfare serves a very important function, aside from being a plot by those commie democrats to attack the righteous capitalist élites who are just trying to achieve the American dream. How long do you think the poor would be singing capitalism's praises if they were at the mercy of a completely "free market"?

Quite... hence it can be seen as a nice distracting intoxicant, after all, hey? Without it people would be forced to engage with the situation... and, while some slow-witted types think that means getting jobs in a market that doesn't want them, that would actually mean revolution of one radical sort or another.

That's because the program is designed to make them dependent (intentionally or accidentally).

Yep. There's actually a poster on NS who can demonstrate this. Long story short, he gets enough money to survive on welfare. If he gets the only job he can get with his current qualifications, he gets bumped off of welfare and cannot make enough money to survive.

Think about it. Drug Dealers give people cocaine. They get addicted, and they spend all their efforts on Cocaine, which doesn't get them out of a rut, deeps them deeper into a hole, and makes them completely dependent on the dealer, much to the dealer's happiness.

Governments give people welfare. Many people become completely dependent on welfare, and they refuse to get themselves out of their poor financial situation, just digging them deeper in the hole. Also, the government can control them, as they are completely dependent upon them.

The paralels are very easy to see. Welfare is cocaine for the masses.

STOP TELLING THE TRUTH! You're ruining my naive egalitarian ideals!

Wow. So many generalizations, I cannot count. Back to the "oh, they're just lazy" argument. A friend of mine became homeless and impoverished because of things completely beyond her control. She was a biology professor at Harvard University and a damn good one, too. But she had what was later found to be bipolar. Her doctor misdiagnosed her as being depressed and prescribed medication to her that had the opposite intended effect. She was asked to leave teaching because of her erratic behavior and eventually she ended up on the streets through no fault of her own. Is she just some "welfare queen"?

All I hear from people like Serapindal is: "People without money deserve to starve and die".

It's not that people without money deserve to starve and die, it's that they don't deserve to eat and live, neither do small children, only the benevolence of their parents keeps children from death.

And you write down the ages old fallacy of every single individual on welfare being a lazy moocher.

:rolleyes:
Not really, as not all cocaine users are controlled by the drug, so not all welfare users are controlled by their dependency on welfare.

But not everyone can. Not just those who aren't able of mind/body. I can't believe that people can be so harsh without bothering to understand a situation. You don't just wade into a fight swinging a baseball bat without knowing why the fight is going on. The random reference to communism only deepens your appearance of ignorance. That's ignorance, not idiocy (as yet), so don't get huffy.

Unemployment isn't caused by laziness. SURELY you understand that? You just can't be entering this debate, having an opinion on this matter, without appreciating that! You can't get a job if there isn't one. You can't get a job if someone else got there first. If you didn't get there first, you should just be dismissed as a self-pitying drain and left to die?

As to the notion of your money, peh, how much you have is rarely defined by how hard you work. There's no magic formula, much as many people might like to think there is. If the powers that be decide to give some money to an out of work fellow, well, they also decide to give you -working- some. You don't decide how much you get, and you damn well don't decide how much anyone else gets.

your assumption that I am uneducated is pfunny.

don't talk to me about how money is made.

Here's why Communism/socialism suck (many of these are related):

1)It punishes entrepreneurialism through ultra-high taxes and regulation. Who wants to go into business when he's going to get taxed out the arse and will have negligible control (such as the ability to fire people based on competence/quality of work) of his company?

2)Because it punishes entrepreneurialism, many, many people will have trouble finding jobs (unless the government steps in and gives them jobs).

3)Because it punishes entrepreneurialism, and because people with great business ideas are less likely to innovate, there is bound to be less competition and, hence, crappy products.

4)When products suck or are in short supply (like standing in line for hours in the Soviet Union to get a loaf of bread), consumers are hurt.

5)When products suck, trade position sucks (who wants to trade for crappy products?).

My overall view of Communism/Socialism (straight socialism as the economic model for Communism) is that they reward averageness (and, at the low end, sloth) at the expense of greatness/innovation/achievement. Fine, but... greatness/innovation/achievement so often reward the rest of society through the providing of jobs, top-notch products for consumers to buy, a healthy economy, solid investment opportunities so that Average Joe can build wealth, etc. Communism loses sight of that and decides to simply implore the masses to hate the rich.
----------------

some unemployment is caused by laziness. you're not going to sit there and tell me that nobody on welfare is taking advantage of their free ride, the forced largesse of their fellow Americans who work.

other reasons for unemployment:

1)Person was fired (many possible explanations for it)

2)The person is financially comfortable and doesn't need to work

3)Injury (though we have workman's comp here, so a worker should not be fired due to injury)

4)The person cannot work, literally (way too old, or mentally/physically handicapped)

I'll continue to think that welfare should be curbed wherever possible... if you're fired and need a hand, cool... take a few months to find another job. If you are incapacitated and cannot work, then the government should take care of you.

Again, my major beef is with those who take advantage of the system and stay on welfare. We need to curb those cases, imo.

WOW.

That was SUPER, but it has nothing to do with the topic in hand. It's pfunny!

It would have been faster for all concerned if you'd just said, "Oh dear, I suppose I was wrong, but rather than sit back and think about it I'm going to try to start an argument about communism and see if I can go for teh win".

Oh well, next time?

You have any evidence to support that such a class of people even exist?
I could spend hours online trying to find links for specific articles (i don't have the time and I'm not a statistician), but I'm sure you'd have run into plenty if you'd been keeping up with your "Basics in Polisci" reading list.
Here's two groundbreaking books on the subject, just chock full of numbers and studies for the statistic-fetishist:

Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465042333/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060975342/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance)

Enjoy!