Is welfare theft from workers? (support for James E)

J

Jim March

New member
James made the point in a now-closed thread that "some welfare" is a morally good thing. Something I happen to agree with.

If you prefer a more pragmatic argument, the fact is that some people just ain't gonna make it on their own. They're either gonna starve, beg, and/or some will commit crimes. Since modest welfare is both waaaay cheaper (and more humane) than jail, and since in the process of committing the crimes they'll inflict varying degrees of loss on all of us, moderate amounts of welfare will be cheaper for most workers than dealing with the results of no welfare at all.

Now granted, in many cases job training and such can be more effective than welfare. But there's a limit to what that can do, and the limit goes by a name: Alan Greenspan.

Ol' Alan ain't a bad guy. But when he thinks unemployment has dropped too low, he gets in a tizzy because he thinks that means inflation is about to explode. So he dries up the cash supply, raising interest rates, slowing down business expansion and reducing hiring.

This isn't theory, it's fact. I remember one spring a couple of years back, when headlines screamed "300,000 new jobs created last quarter" in every business section of every paper. What happened next was predictable: the stock market took a dump because everybody knew ol' Alan was gonna choke the hell out of the cash supply in response.

In other words, we do NOT have a "free market" going on. Do we the taxpayers have a moral obligation to support the least-employable segment of the population because our gov't is screwing over their job prospects?

Arguably, YES. Because we the people are tolerating (and voting in) elected government officials who are tampering with the economy. We are responsible, folks, no two ways about it. It's even possible to argue that Alan's tampering is necessary and beneficial to the average taxpayer - that's not my opinion, but I recognize that there's rational arguments the other way. And if so, taxpayers such as myself are then doubly responsible for the needs of the neediest, because we gain by them being needy and we vote in the gov't that makes them needy.

That's the hand we're dealt.

Jim
 
An old friend used to make the point that when people need help it should come from relatives and churches etc, rather than from the government. His reason was that when a PERSON is helping you, you are more motivated to get back on your own than when the help comes from a faceless government agency. He said that it would stop the one-way trip to the welfare rolls.
And think of it like this, if we weren't paying the high cost of govt welfare, we would be able to help a friend or relative for a while.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Welfare, as in giving to others and caring about them is not robbery. Welfare, as in the government taking my paycheck and deciding who to distribute it to is. I believe I am much better able, on my own, to decide who needs a hand and I don't have to pay administration costs.
 
Here's something to consider, and I don't have the source anymore but I'm sure its not hard to find.

The various levels of government spend about $20,000 for each "poor adult" in this country. That's about 30 million adults living below the poverty line and Fed, state and local gubmints spending roughly $600 billion on welfare/poverty/homeless programs. That's not even considering the billions in private charity.

How in the world do we have "poor" in this country? WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY!!!

Makes you think.
 
Jim,

You are way off the map on this one! The fact is that the big jump in crime in the United States follows the arrival of the welfare state not the other way around.

It wasn't that joblessness led to crime which led to welfare. The way it went is welfare led to joblessness led to crime.

If you read any of the leftist literature supporting welfare this was the way it was supposed to go, except for some specifics about the crime. Basically the left supported welfare because it wanted to attack the foundations of the family and also make those who worked in low paying job look like suckers. They succeeded admirably, except that it didn't lead the communist paradise they hoped for.

Welfare primarily increases crime by rewarding illegitimacy. This leads to angry young, uneducated men who prey on the rest of society. The way to solve this problem is to cut off the welfare to make illegitimacy less attractive. Something that has happened in some places to a very small extent recently. The other thing is to kill off the violent young men who are preying on society. Problem solved.

I'm not joking I believe that eliminating welfare would unconditionally lower crime in this country.

By the way Charles Murray's book on the Welfare State, Losing Ground, is an excellent read on this topic.

Now the federal reserve system. That's a whole other story.
 
Jim March:

Thank you sticking up for me. But I guess I've not made myself very clear on my views of old people and mentally ill. I've seen it up close and if you've got a heart it will break it. No one should have to suffer and be in need. I don't consider it welfare or the poor and needy...it's what my God would expect of me or anyone else who professes to love God. I don't want to get preachy here as I am the last one who should step up to the pulpet and preach...got too many faults and sins behind me. But its do unto others as you would do unto God, and when you do it for others he knows and he appreciates your kindness and being considerate of your fellow man and women. That's all, no party affiliation, no elephant, no donkey. Just doing a good thing is not all that hard...unless you have no charity in your heart. We will now pass the collection plate, amen. :D

Jim
 
JimM, you're right. But welfare as we know it is not about giving what you have to someone who needs it. It's about taking what is your's and giving it to someone a politician thinks needs it.
 
Valdez, I can see your point. But, what do we do about the gov't *deliberately* creating unemployment? That's really what's going on!

James: if the "unable to find a job" crowd is getting help, one can hope that the truly physically unable to work are also getting assistance. I suspect that the latter group is actually smaller than the former.

There's also a whole slew of "side issues" tied to poverty/welfare. Past racism is a factor, so is the "war on drugs", so is school financing based on the income levels of the surrounding communities. So are state monopolies on schools, for that matter - most gov't agencies are grossly inefficient especially when they get huge, your typical inner-city school is a grotesque example and helps maintain poverty. That's why I like vouchers. Hey, even gun control is a factor - the poorest, most disgusting areas of the nation are all "heavy gun control zones". I don't think the link is "direct" or a "primary cause", but it's an issue.

So Valdez, getting back to you, if the gov't is maintaining crappy schools and then systematically stripping the job opportunities of the lower rungs by jacking up interest rates whenever things get better, well gee...seems like SOME kinda help will be needed. Making sure that "help" doesn't actually hurt is important of course...

Much to thrash out here :).

Jim
 
Lord, help me out here...every time I open my mouth I don't seem to convey my intent. I am not a proponent of welfare persay. That little can of government worms is bit more than I care to expond or support. There are too many folks that are in it for a free ride. There are some it is probably a life saver. The free riders of past history would have as many illigetimate children as they could so they could cut a bigger wefare check. I have seen that for decades. What I am concerned about is not that bunch but the old and infirmed, the mentally ill who can't help themselves. And the crooked medical insurance industry charging exorbent rates, the hospitals and doctors ripping off Medicare and Medicade, those are industry professional people. What chance does the old and imfirmed and mentally ill have against that set up? Is that clear enough for everyone? Jeez!

Jim
 
JimE. You're still right ;)

I had a similar conversation with a liberal aquintance lately and he was stunned when I asked him what he was doing for those who need it.

(I'm not putting you in the same category as him)

My point is, though, that I agree some people really need a hand, either occasionally because of rough times, or long-term, because of disability, etc. But instead of focusing on government programs, we need to look at what we're doing. I can't afford to support another whole family, but I can take the place of several of the "service" available, especially those dealing with children. Of, course, if the government let me keep more of my money, I'd be able to support a small 3rd world country in the style they've been accustomed to (I'm teasing a bit there). I'd like to see people get away from goverment dependance and look at what we can do personally, to avoid a government sponsored welfare system.
 
Actually, this may be the one area that I don't entirely agree with my party on (the LP). In a perfect world of course, the infirm, elderly and otherwise honestly incapacitated would be helped through private charity thus eliminating any need for a government institution for the purpose.

Unfortunately, the world is not perfect. So I have to agree that a "safety net" should be established by the government, but only for those honestly unable to provide for themselves; not people capable of working. I would much prefer that said system was funded via an interest gaining fund, special government bonds or some other form other than taxation. Taxation is theft, period.

I don't want to see some poor guy in a wheel chair not get the care he needs because he isn't able to earn the money for it. The best option, for himself and us, would be to find work he could do, but there are cases where this is just not possible. Christian charity aside (I'm not Christian), this is basic ethics; he should be helped.
 
Couldn't resist...

Do you really think that life is so easy? Either you are physically crippled and thus can't work, or you are abusing the system...

What about the millions of people in north america that are healthy, capable of working but simply not able to find a job?

I would think that THOSE people are the vast majority of welfare users. Yes, there are few who abuse the system, yes, there are some who are not able to work, but the vast majority are just normal folks caught with bad luck.

I will give you a good example:
My lady had to go down to New Mexico a while back and tell several thousand people that they are fired. The summary of her speech was a bit like this:
"Hey folks, very nice of you that you have worked for us for so long, but you know, we are centralizing the production and we have two factories in north america that produce Always (the lady helper). Now, one of them is Canada and Canada requires us to pay the workers a lot of money before we can fire them, they also want us to inform them a few month ahead that they are fired, you know, all that stuff. Now you, you can just be fired with a handful of petty cash for each of you. So, no need to come back to work tomorrow, the factory won't be there anymore."

After that incident she left the company and ventured into politics, but that's another story.
I am sure stuff like this happens all the time. Those were some 6000 workers out there. Pretty much unskilled labour, warehouse people and such. The town they lived in WAS the factory. There was just the big factory and a bit of infrastructure to support it. The closing came pretty much overnight. I don't think many of them had the "foresight" to put lots of money away for times like that.
Are these people abusing the system?
The very same could happen tomorrow to most of you.

Folks, get real...

Helge
 
Why does one need a JOB? Start a business.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity.

I have talked to many people about improving their life. Most simply refuse to see the opportunities right in front of them.

Many say, "You just can't make it on one income anymore."

That's true if you refuse to take advantage of opportunity.

I'm the bread-winner. My wife raises the children. She works hard enough 24/7 without having to go and get a JOB.

We're not on welfare.

I've met many people who are on "Disability" and yet they move just fine, talk just fine... where is the disability? Get a desk job, or start a business...

I gladly donate to charities.

I resent my money being taken at the threat of jail, gun-point, death by a government who has overstepped its bounds.

Welfare in the right hands, administered properly has its place.

Government can not give what it does not take in the first place.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Welfare from the government should be a last thing to seek out. The safety net, should all else fails. What I mean by that is, should family, church, soup kitchen, charity, etc. fail to give you a hand up and out to take care of yourselfe then in comes the safety net. The safety net, government supplied welfare provides, should be a bare minimum to sustain life. Lets not make it attractive as a way of life! I see it as a buffer between life and death only. The persons recieving this government provided welfare should want to get on their on a soon a possible.

My views extend to prisons the same way. Make prison an unpleasant "HELL HOLE" so no one wants to go there. Make the price of comitting crime to high.

Thats my story and Im sticking to it!
 
If I steal from my neighbor to give to the mendicant on the street I am a thief. When the government does it they call it welfare.

Welfare makes a police state necessary because where there is welfare there will be cheaters and everything from positive identity tracking -- to avoid double dipping -- to disarming the people -- recall that public housing is the first place house to house searches for weapons was tried -- will be eventually instituted. Compassion's Commissars rule with an iron fist.

Welfare removes some threat of the "stick" from the "carrot and stick" motivation for productivity. Take a look at the fate of socialist countries especially the U.S.S.R. if you doubt.

Welfare removes the voluntary nature of charity demeaning the recipient and the giver alike.

Just don't seem to be able to find much good in it. ;) Would much prefer to pay 50 - 60% less tax and give to charities voluntarily. :)

Bentley

"Where there is a man who does not labor because another is compelled to work for him, there slavery is."
-- Leo Tolstoy - "The Slavery of Our Times" (1900)
 
Welfare is charity by force- the force of government to extract taxes. Some folks in any society will need help. The question is really whether government or private charties can do the job better? What has been shown is that government's cost to deliver a dollar of benefit to the one in need is extremely high and inefficient--similar to those charities that spend more in fundraising than in providing aid.
As to Our "free market economy", there hasn't been one in the U.S. since WWII at least. We have a "mixed economy". While there is much to criticize, I have to give the devil its due: Given the economy's overall performance over the last 50 years and comparing it to any 50 year period prior to WWII, somebody must be doing something right. Still, there is a lot to dislike.
 
"Couldn't resist..."

Couldn't resist what Hegles? pushing your twisted socialism on Americans.

"What about the millions of people in north america that are healthy, capable of working but simply not able to find a job?"

Try www.monster.com, or www.hotjobs.com, or one of the MANY other job sites on the net, or even the good old classifieds.


"Hey folks, very nice of you that you have worked for us for so long, but you know, we are centralizing the production and we have two factories in north america that produce Always (the lady helper). Now, one of them is Canada and Canada requires us to pay the workers a lot of money before we can fire them, they also want us to inform them a few month ahead that they are fired, you know, all that stuff. Now you, you can just be fired with a handful of petty cash for each of you. So, no need to come back to work tomorrow, the factory won't be there anymore."

The problem with this scenerio is the disguisting socialist policies of Canada that require those insane workplace regulations. Perhaps the free market will teach the company not to put factories in countries where they cater to socialists.

"The town they lived in WAS the factory."

My Grandfather lived in town like that in the Great Depression, he moved. Where did he move? He went to live with family members in a different part of the country where there were jobs.

"I don't think many of them had the "foresight" to put lots of money away for times like that."

I doubt they will make that mistake again. Maybe putting money away for rough times would be a bit easier if we Americans didnt pay 30-50% of our income in taxes that mostly go to supporting these inefficient and ultimatly harmful social programs. If you provide an enviorment where people dont have to learn from their mistakes because everyone else pays for it, they will not learn.

Folks, get real...and socialists, GO BACK TO EUROPE!!!

Glock Glockler


[This message has been edited by glock glockler (edited July 23, 2000).]
 
I have some strong feelings here too. I volunteer at a food pantry from time to time that is run by my parents and is an effort of all the local churches. Not one govt. dime goes into the running of that food pantry. We help those without work find a job, those without food to eat, we provide just about every service that the state does (nutrition info, diapers, job search help,ect...), but we do it free, and we do it all on donations, much of it corperate. HEB calls us once a month to come and pick up a whole flatbed trailer full of food, diapers, ect... We go get it, stock it, and make up bags full of food for a family of four, three, ect...
Here's what I've observed: A lot of our customers have no plan to get off of welfare. They hide assets, hide income ect, so that they can keep getting the check. For approximately 20% of our clients, it is a lifestyle and career choice. Just like some of you went to college and worked to become a stock broker, or a teacher, these people are groomed from birth to suck off the government titty, and they feel no shame because mamma, daddy (if he is known), and all the relatives are doing it.
Another group we help are the wives and families of people in prison or on parole. These people have it tough. Most of them are non-violent, typically drug offenses. After spending 5 years in prison, they get out and have to do 20 hours a week community service for four years, and they have to pay restitution, and keep a forty hour week job. If they lose their job, back to jail they go. If their job skills are construction (a lot of em are), and a job site is out of the county, they're out of luck. The welfare system doesn't help these people at all because they make money (but have to spend it on restitution). The whole criminal justice system is screwed from my vantage point. Let them do their time, and then be done with it. While daddy may have screwed up, it isn't the blame of his wife and kids. Better yet, let's not send non-violent people to prison in the first place. They can do community service, and still exert some fatherly influence on their kids in the home instead of the kids growing up fatherless. These people need help getting on their feet. We're glad to provide it, and the state isn't.
There's the little old widows/widowers who can't make it off of social security, and need help. They're the most fun because they will help out around the place so they don't feel like they're useless. They want to sweep the floor, or dust shelves. These people need help, but the govt. doesn't give them enough to pay rent and eat. It isn't their fault. They should've destroyed the SS system long ago, but they thought they'd make more than that after paying their whole lives into the system. Here's a good lesson for all of us: What ever you give to the govt to distribute at least 40% gets eaten in Bureaucrat salaries.
Whatever you give to a church, or local charity (not the united way, but a genuine local charity) usually is dispersed by volunteers who can give individual attention to each problem, and we actually help a lot of folks to work themselves out of poverty (if you can actually define anyone as being in poverty in the United States) if they want to help themselves.
Big corperations like HEB donate tens of thousands of dollars in food every year to us, and in fact have given so much that we must now construct our own warehouse to store it all. If you live in South Texas, you shouldn't feel badly about paying the little extra HEB charges you. The only reason that someone in South Texas goes hungry is by choice due to companies like them.
I often wonder just what we could do if people didn't already give up almost half their paychecks in taxes. I'm sure the donations would flow in in huge ammounts. The government doesn't care about helping you find a job, and in fact their only job is to ensure that you stay in poverty (US definition) so that they will continue to keep their jobs doling out the checks and services.
I am disgusted that I send my checks to the govt charity programs that are ineffective, top-heavy, and staffed by careless people who are trying to fit people into narrowly defined catagories so that they can give them a check.
For all of you that think the govt should be involved in poverty fighting, you haven't been there yet. I would bet a lot of money that you have all sorts of private charities in your area fighting poverty that you just never take notice of. The Catholic church comes to mind. Most Protestant denominations run charities with 0% overhead costs. There would be no poor in america exept unemployed bureaucrats if it weren't for the bureaucrats in the first place.
 
It is all by design.

They (the super rich) control the money, in turn, that is what controls our politicians.

Many have speculated as to why, and I can only speculate.

Since the begining of recorded history we have had men whos wish was to have control over other men.

What we have today is just a continuation of this desire.

Waterdog
 
I agree with welfare for physically handicap and older folks that absolutely need it in those circumstances.

I do not agree with it for people that are not handicapped. I have spent hours trying to find one person willing to work on more then a few jobs. It is not easy to find anyone who A. Will actually work and B. who will even show up. I have done this many many times and it is always the same. Here is my problem - There are a lot of welfare kings / queens out there that refuse to work for less then $15.00 / hr whan they have absolutely no right to refuse to work. These people live well enough off of their welfare that they have no motivation to work and spend their time trying to elect the next person that will leach off of productive members of society to support their laziness. I find it hard to believe that these poor people can't get a job when I personally offered them jobs and get turned down many many many times.

HeldgeS: If l you'd spent some time trying to hire these people I assure you that you'd have a different opinion. A lot of them simply will not work unless you pay them well beyond what their job is worth and even then ( I've had to do that too ) they still won't actually work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top