Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
I was born here

Welfare: What's your problem with it?

Recommended Posts

It seems to me that a lot of people bash welfare. The common attack that I hear or read is that it takes away incentive to work (i.e. welfare is for lazy scum). However, I'm under the impression that the opposite is true.

 

1. Welfare helps jobless and in-debt individuals.

2. Starting a business is risky; If you fail to run a business you may be in serious debt and even jobless.

3. So, welfare decreases the risk of starting a business.

4. Therefore, if the jobless and in-debt receive welfare then more individuals will be willing to start a business.

 

Please share your view and possibly show me how I'm wrong.

 

- peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term welfare is ambiguous. When I hear people criticize welfare, I assume they are talking about the AFDC. The Aid to Families with Dependant Children accounts for 1 percent of the federal budget. I'd say if someone is targeting welfare as a source of runaway government spending, they should look elsewhere. Defense comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your counter-argument to the one you said you commonly hear is weak. You see only the good just as they see only the bad. I don't know the stats, but I don't think the majority of people of welfare were at one time aspiring entrepreneurs who's businesses went bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people I hear that complain about welfare come from upper to wealthy class backgrounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i fall into the lower middle class bracket or middle class, i dont know, but i complain about welfare.

but i just dont complain about welfare, i complain about just about everything that is unconstitutional or has basis in socialism.

 

the main problem is that 'welfare' is nothing more than legalized robbery. it involves big bro, robbing you, to give to your neighbor. and every argument defending welfare skirts this and never addresses it or completely dismisses it from the beginning. the analogy is:

 

you are walking down the street, you put a gun to this guy's head and rob him of his coat. you take this coat and give it to another guy who is walking down the street who doesnt have a coat. he may or may not need one.

 

but with welfare, you have quite a better system. see, politicians get voted into office by people who want free money, services or handouts from the government without having to work for them. so they elect these politicians on their promise to give them more and more of the public money. they go to the legislature, they vote on the legalized theft bill, then they begin to take money from the productive members of society, to give to the other members who voted in these politicians. if you or i were to to this, we would call it theft and be thrown into jail. congress on the other hand, does this by majority vote, and euphemistically calls it 'wealth redistribution.'

 

but to debate your points made

 

1. welfare in the short term puts money in these peoples' pockets. in the long term it creates entire classes and sections of society that are dependent on the government. that are dependent on the whole scheme of stealing peoples money to give to others. not to mention, that whenever the government subsidizes something they get more of it. all of a sudden, people started coming out of the wood work, with the incentive to not work, but that they can do nothing and earn more money than if they worked. welfare also creates the incentive for these people to have kids and not get married, therefore raising a whole other generation dependent on the state. the poverty rate has not been reduced by one percentage point since LBJ started the great society initiative

 

2. that is the game of capitalism. it is a game of profit and LOSS. should we be bailing out millionaires who start businesses and fail like we do now? should we be bailing out big banks? fuck no. and no one should be forced to have money stolen from them to bail out anyone. if someone wants to give to private charity to handle this problem, that knows how to properly allocate this money, then fine. voluntary donations are nothing like 'welfare.' even warren buffet, the hillary clinton supporter is leaving his millions to private charity foundations. believe me, if welfarism worked, he would just give it to uncle sam.

 

3. i just think that whole line of reasoning on 2-4 are looney.

 

why stop at redistributing money? why not body parts. see, your son might have 2 eyes, and your neighbors son might have none. i say, i go to congress and push for a bill to have one of your son's eye's removed to give to the guy that has none.

and of course there is follicle injustice. we MUST start taking hair from the hairy guy at the mall to give to others because they are not endowed with such a great amount of hair.

 

of course that all sounds looney, but that is the basis of centralized redistributionist state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i guess i fall into the lower middle class bracket or middle class, i dont know, but i complain about welfare.

but i just dont complain about welfare, i complain about just about everything that is unconstitutional or has basis in socialism.

 

In the context of this discussion welfare has nothing to do with socialism (and everything to do with capitalism) and further convinces me you don't actually understand 'socialism' or really any history to do with the relationship between capital and labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't help people. I think if anything it hurts them by creating a permanent underclass. Also, it's the people that genuinely want help to get on their feet that seem to get screwed the worst by welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the context of this discussion welfare has nothing to do with socialism (and everything to do with capitalism) and further convinces me you don't actually understand 'socialism' or really any history to do with the relationship between capital and labor.

 

I'd say AOD is pretty on point with the fact that welfare is a socialist ideal...

 

Main Entry:so·cial·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Function:noun Date:1837

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does welfare have everything to do with capitalism? it is totally based one hundred percent on 'from each according to their ability to each according to their need.' it is not based on voluntarism at all, which capitalism is. welfare is based on coercion. which all total socialist schemes are based on. the only voluntary socialism are things like the family and the nunnery. the marxists all support coercion in the fact that if you dont want to partake in their beautiful collectivist society, you are branded an enemy of revolution and ultimately killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of a line from the movie the Departed, "Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But your counter-argument to the one you said you commonly hear is weak. You see only the good just as they see only the bad. I don't know the stats, but I don't think the majority of people of welfare were at one time aspiring entrepreneurs who's businesses went bankrupt.

 

 

I think you've never been to the projects.

 

 

The majority of welfare recipients are women who have had children and are not married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say AOD is pretty on point with the fact that welfare is a socialist ideal...

 

The ideas behind welfare are not 'socialist' they have been around for centuries and reflect basic human interests, none of which has to do with welfare in the context we are talking about.

 

how does welfare have everything to do with capitalism? it is totally based one hundred percent on 'from each according to their ability to each according to their need.' it is not based on voluntarism at all, which capitalism is.

 

State capitalism - the modern welfare state.

 

Welfare is an integral part of state capitalism - it has nothing to do with 'socialism'

 

welfare is based on coercion. which all total socialist schemes are based on.

 

No they aren't.

 

the only voluntary socialism are things like the family and the nunnery. the marxists all support coercion in the fact that if you dont want to partake in their beautiful collectivist society, you are branded an enemy of revolution and ultimately killed.

 

Another example of you knowing fuck all about 'socialism'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the main problem is that 'welfare' is nothing more than legalized robbery. it involves big bro, robbing you, to give to your neighbor. and every argument defending welfare skirts this and never addresses it or completely dismisses it from the beginning. the analogy is:

Some would even go as far to argue that tax is an extortion racket. "Pay us money". "What am I paying you for?" "you're paying us money for protection." "Protection from what?" "Protection from us putting you in gaol for not paying us money!".

 

Of course you also get infrastructure, defence forces and of course, welfare systems.

 

But, remember that welfare is not just unemployment benefits. I once broke my arm just after quitting a job and couldn't start my new job. I was in a cast for two months and would have been fucked without my sickness benefits. It is also support for the elderly and infirm. A lot of people that are too old to work anymore need support. My Grandfather (the coolest mother fucker to ever walk the earth), worked in the railways all his life. A job that didn't pay too well but he worked hard, had a family and contributed to society through work and charity. I think it's good that people like this get support and I'm happy to pay for it.

 

You also have to look at the alternatives. With those without (for whatever reason, not all are responsible for their situation or blessed with the education/upbringing/opportunities/good health to make good) not getting a hand from the state, will they turn to illegal practices to support themselves? How much employment, economy and social currency does the welfare system itself create? I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed other than the possibility of creating a dependent society.

 

Sweden has a strong welfare system and their unemployment levels are relatively low (around 5% for 2005. I'm not aware of how they statistically measure this and am also aware that this number is arguable...., as are all governmental stats). However, sweden takes in a lot of refugees from Africa and elsewhere. The Refugees from former Yugoslavia seem to work well in society, get jobs, learn the language and contribute. The Africans don't. Their life as compared prior to emigrating is so much better even on welfare that they choose not to work. So, whilst it doesn't seem to create a dependent underclass with Swedish people and for the most part European immigrants, it does with the Africans.

 

This is a hugely complex issue that involves politics, sociology and psychology (I have majors in all three subjects and wouldn't have a fucking clue about welfare issues....., how retarded am I?!) and requires a huge amount of statistical analysis and objective research of which I have done/read none. So I cannot have a credible opinion on the issue but for now I'd only go as far to say that I'd rather have it than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Another example of you knowing fuck all about 'socialism'"

 

isnt soviet russia, with its nationalization of everything, abolition of private property, and totalitarian nature part of the marxist theory of transition from capitalism to the total stateless classless society? yes it is. since this is a phase of socialism, how can you not say that it is based on coercion? if you dont partake in the great scheme of collectivism you are simply thrown in the gulag and killed.

 

again, welfare is based 100% on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' which is has nothing to do with voluntary capitalism.

 

if you say i am using an abstract definition of socialism, you better look in the mirror hoss. do you understand that capitalism is nothing more than voluntary human action in a framework of the market place and private property? it has nothing to do with socialist schemes where money is taken from one group to give to the other.

 

i love how this purple guy just says 'you dont know what the fuck you are talking about' and just leaves it at that and never even begins to try to show his position. he is like the neocons who get on libertarians and dont even explain their position, they are just set back by the logic and cant even argue against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Another example of you knowing fuck all about 'socialism'"

 

isnt soviet russia, with its nationalization of everything, abolition of private property, and totalitarian nature part of the marxist theory of transition from capitalism to the total stateless classless society? yes it is.

 

No it isn't.

 

I think we have already covered the part where you live in a delusional world where Soviet Russia was 'communist'

 

again, welfare is based 100% on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' which is has nothing to do with voluntary capitalism.

 

There is nothing voluntary about capitalism and no such thing as 'voluntary capitalism' as a phrase.

 

State capitalism which 90% of us live under is called the WELFARE STATE. Welfare is an integral part of how advanced capitalist societies operate, it has nothing to do with 'socialism'.

 

 

if you say i am using an abstract definition of socialism, you better look in the mirror hoss. do you understand that capitalism is nothing more than voluntary human action in a framework of the market place and private property? it has nothing to do with socialist schemes where money is taken from one group to give to the other.

 

"Voluntary human action"

"Work for less than the value of your labour or starve"

 

i love how this purple guy just says 'you dont know what the fuck you are talking about' and just leaves it at that and never even begins to try to show his position.

 

Because you don't.

 

You are posturing as if you know something and you have a rabid fixation with 'communism'.

 

1. Capitalism isn't a voluntary system - this idea is fucking ridiculous

 

Where did you learn this shit? intro to economics 101? There is nothing voluntary about the relationship between capital and labor.

 

2. Welfare is an essential part OF state capitalism

 

You try to proclaim the virtues of capitalism without even understanding integral pieces of the puzzle. You shouldn't even be claiming that I don't explain my position, YOU should know this part because YOUR the one in favour of the system.

 

 

he is like the neocons who get on libertarians and dont even explain their position, they are just set back by the logic and cant even argue against it.

 

Yeah ok "set back by the logic" so far you have demonstrated almost no understanding of THE RED MENACE SOCIALIMSESZ! or your preferred system of state capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to look at the alternatives. With those without (for whatever reason, not all are responsible for their situation or blessed with the education/upbringing/opportunities/good health to make good) not getting a hand from the state, will they turn to illegal practices to support themselves? How much employment, economy and social currency does the welfare system itself create? I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed other than the possibility of creating a dependent society.

 

The idea of a dependent society from what I have read is rubbish...

 

I was reading somewhere recently, I think in Australia or New Zealand, where the level of people on welfare stayed ruffly the same for a decade and it was assumed that the same set of people, more or less, were on it. Someone actually did a research study recently and found that while the level of welfare stayed the same the turn over of people was massive and virtually no one at the beginning of the time period analyzed was on welfare at the end of the period.

 

Not to mention the obvious major social issue, and one of the reasons it is integral to capitalism, that would arise from abolishing THE EVIL STENCH OF SOCIALIST BASED WELFARE... people with no money for bread, simply taking bread.

 

Sweden has a strong welfare system and their unemployment levels are relatively low (around 5% for 2005. I'm not aware of how they statistically measure this and am also aware that this number is arguable...., as are all governmental stats). However, sweden takes in a lot of refugees from Africa and elsewhere. The Refugees from former Yugoslavia seem to work well in society, get jobs, learn the language and contribute. The Africans don't. Their life as compared prior to emigrating is so much better even on welfare that they choose not to work. So, whilst it doesn't seem to create a dependent underclass with Swedish people and for the most part European immigrants, it does with the Africans.

 

Good point. There are also three models of state welfare, can't remember off the head, but the Scandinavian area operate on one, US, UK, Australia, Canada etc operate on another and there was a third (the least successful) I think relating to South America or Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I actually stopped for a minute when I typed that and looked at it with a :confused:. Although I guess that is why I focus on social sciences and not teaching English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it isn't.

 

I think we have already covered the part where you live in a delusional world where Soviet Russia was 'communist'

 

 

 

There is nothing voluntary about capitalism and no such thing as 'voluntary capitalism' as a phrase.

 

State capitalism which 90% of us live under is called the WELFARE STATE. Welfare is an integral part of how advanced capitalist societies operate, it has nothing to do with 'socialism'.

 

 

 

 

"Voluntary human action"

"Work for less than the value of your labour or starve"

 

 

 

Because you don't.

 

You are posturing as if you know something and you have a rabid fixation with 'communism'.

 

1. Capitalism isn't a voluntary system - this idea is fucking ridiculous

 

Where did you learn this shit? intro to economics 101? There is nothing voluntary about the relationship between capital and labor.

 

2. Welfare is an essential part OF state capitalism

 

You try to proclaim the virtues of capitalism without even understanding integral pieces of the puzzle. You shouldn't even be claiming that I don't explain my position, YOU should know this part because YOUR the one in favour of the system.

 

 

 

 

Yeah ok "set back by the logic" so far you have demonstrated almost no understanding of THE RED MENACE SOCIALIMSESZ! or your preferred system of state capitalism.

 

im an opponent of state capitalism. im a laissez faire capitalist. you get your schooling from marx. the leftist view is that society does not cooperate, it is at constant odds with each other. that people who voluntarily get jobs, start businesses, engage in trade, sell things, buy things, all within a framework of freedom are some how being 'exploited.'

 

i reject the view 100% and take offense to you trying to belittle me with stupid statements and no real rebuttals to my arguments other than...'where did you learn this shit, econ 101? doood! you are such a state capitalistz!'

 

the soviet society was marx's prediction of one of the stages of changing society from capitalism to the omnipotent classless society where no one is 'exploited'. (dictators kill all those people who would feel exploited before they really make it to the utopia of full collective communism.) marx also said capitalism must fail, generations ago, and it is still going strong. so much for that.

 

atleast i dont jump around responding to everything you say about you being a stupid illiterate dumb fuck. you are just misguided thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Capitalism isn't a voluntary system - this idea is fucking ridiculous"

 

capitalism is 100% voluntary. does walmart have a gun to your head making you buy things at their store? does an employer have a gun to your head making you work for him? do you put guns to your employee's heads making them work for you? since the answer to all of those is no, trade is mutually beneficial otherwise, in a free society, you would not take part in the trade.

it is the sign of a free society that people can advocate socialist policies. but try that in a socialist society.

 

l_b69ec02f4a1d54bdc92b547e4911f1be.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×