Confessions of a Welfare Queen

[Goober]

Originally posted by newfangle
Maybe I should spell it out for you.


This:



Contradicts this:

Umm, I do not see how. I stated that the concept behind welfare is good, solid reasons for having it, but then i went on and explained how welfare does not work well in real life, for the above stated reasons.

Let me try to explain it like this: Idealistically, welfare is the perfect system, it gives people a boost to try and find a pernament job.

Realistically, it does not work well. People take advantage of it, they get "addicted" to it. They use it as a main income, and do not even bother trying to find a job, as they are having money thrown at them. I likely should have included the idealism and realism in the above post, but I still think it was fairly clear what I meant. I fail to see your point about that post of mine you quoted, please explain further.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Why are you giving in to his BS?

Welfare works great. The REAL problem is that politicians are selling their souls to the highest bidder on EBay. Hence the idiotic loopholes for people who don't need welfare in the first place!

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Welfare is like Communism, sounds good, but when used there are always people who take advantage forcing others to suffer.

Also if you give money to somebody who is out of work and not looking for work, then they wont bother to work as they're getting money for being lazy. Thats why I say scrap welfare, but keep things like temporary Unemployment money to people who just lost their job and need something to support them and their families till they find a new job, if they take to long then they stop getting checks.

Sorry if this sounds heartless, but our country is losing so much money and people who are honest and pay their taxes our suffering. I cant even begin to count how many people I have seen on Judge shows, who are on welfare and act like its our countries gift to them.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

"denying man's freedom" and they're essentially "equivalent with communists, fascists, and bigots" [actual quotes from various Newf-infested threads].

Precisely.

What will it take for you to understand that there can be no comprimise with control, no comprimise with irrationality, no comprimise with evil? You seem content in deeming man a sacrificial animal, all in the name of pragmatism, or whatever other delusion you muster in order to rationalize your means.

Not only are you on the same grounds as any other murdering-Stalinist that has ever ravaged this planet, you are worse. Why? Because you know how foul your methods are, but instead of being honest about it, you cry out that you do it in the name of freedom. Unfortunately the ends to your means is not freedom, but rather controls.

You also dismiss any person of integrity, any person that refuses to comprimise as an extremist. A tactic on par with every other murdering dictator. Tell me, oh wise child, what is an extremist? What does it mean to acknowledge an extreme. You simply dismiss all extremism as evil. Tell me, is it evil to be extremely healthy? How about extremely intelligent?

You can respond to every poster that disagrees with you in the Third person, or whatever your stradegy-of-the-week is, but it won't make a damn bit of difference. You're a sad, tiny little child, whose only hope for success is the parasitical infestation of the success of others.

Now you will spew out some bromide like, "Newf's lost it," or whatever makes yours fancy. Fortunately, it makes no difference to me.

Ta!

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Why are you giving in to his BS?

Welfare works great. The REAL problem is that politicians are selling their souls to the highest bidder on EBay. Hence the idiotic loopholes for people who don't need welfare in the first place!

I am not giving in, I just see welfare as, idealistically, a very sound system that has, realistically, never been implemented right, all because of politicians and their BS. People who can works and are on welfare are taking advantage of the system, and are part of the reason why the system doesn't work. Then the government tries to force them off welfare, and things go from bad to worse, as those that need welfare are cut off. Just privitize it, it may work better . . .

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

You seem content in deeming man a sacrificial animal, all in the name of pragmatism, or whatever other delusion you muster in order to rationalize your means.

That's right folks! Pragmatism kills people. Maybe you need to make us of this? The point of pragmatism is CONSERVING human life even if it means LIMITING human freedom. Just like any other ideology, it can be taken to an extreme. In this case, communism. On the other hand, your extreme is no different in its natural result. You envision a world where people are ALLOWED to starve in the streets. All for the good of "freedom"? What use is that? Sounds like mixed up priorities to me.

Unfortunately the ends to your means is not freedom, but rather controls.


You clearly don't understand: if total freedom is allowed, what you end up with is a strongman dictatorship. Why does anarchy always result in a brutal authoritarian state?

You ASSUME that if we allow exponential stratification of wealth, the rich will not take advantage of their burgeoning power and corrupt or abolish the democratic state. Is there ANY historical example of such self-restraint? You know there are a myriad of examples for the other side of the argument.

You simply dismiss all extremism as evil. Tell me, is it evil to be extremely healthy?

Perfect health is the natural state of man in a vacuum. So is perfect freedom. Now put man in a society, and you begin to see what EXCESSIVE freedom can do. Oppress people. Is there such a thing as excessive health? No. Why? Because your health can't harm anyone.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Perfect health is the natural state of man in a vacuum. So is perfect freedom. Now put man in a society, and you begin to see what EXCESSIVE freedom can do. Oppress people. Is there such a thing as excessive health? No. Why? Because your health can't harm anyone.

Not to butt in on Newfangle's argument...but suppose someone else is really unhealthy, and newfangle's health could be taken away and given to that person. Sure, newfangle wouldn't be the picture of health anymore, but the other person would be a bit healthier.

You know...nevermind. You would obviously support that, because it's the same as any sort of collectivism.

 

[thestonesfan]

Anyway, as to the topic, welfare is a terminal disease of our current society. It's only justification is that it may be somewhat effective in placating mindless hordes of destructive scum.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Not to butt in on Newfangle's argument...but suppose someone else is really unhealthy, and newfangle's health could be taken away and given to that person. Sure, newfangle wouldn't be the picture of health anymore, but the other person would be a bit healthier. You know...nevermind. You would obviously support that, because it's the same as any sort of collectivism.

Why bother? The guy's immune system works perfectly fine, supposedly.

Your analogy misses the point because the goal of welfare is not wealth redistribution in and of itself but minimizing poverty. Both Newfangle and the other guy are "generating" health in the same way that they are generating wealth. The only excuse for "stealing" [as Newf would put it] some health from Newf to give to the other guy is to help him get back on his feet to where his own immune system [health generation mechanism] can take over the task. Same with welfare - the goal isn't to make the poor addicts of state aid but to tide them over a crisis to where they can again become productive members of society.

It's only justification is that it may be somewhat effective in placating mindless hordes of destructive scum.


Bingo. Welfare staves off civil unrest. Did you read what I wrote? We agree entirely.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Your analogy misses the point because the goal of welfare is not wealth redistribution in and of itself but minimizing poverty.

But capitalism is more effective for that - the key to minimizing poverty is to create jobs. Higher taxes = smaller payroll.

Both Newfangle and the other guy are "generating" health in the same way that they are generating wealth. The only excuse for "stealing" [as Newf would put it] some health from Newf to give to the other guy is to help him get back on his feet to where his own immune system [health generation mechanism] can take over the task.

But, you're still imposing your will on newfangle. It should be his choice and his alone.

I know, I know. It wouldn't be practical.

Same with welfare - the goal isn't to make the poor addicts of state aid but to tide them over a crisis to where they can again become productive members of society.

Goals do not equal the results, and in the case of giving handouts, this is painfully obvious. Most people need an incentive to work, not an incentive to sit around.

Anyway, I can give you an equally utopic goal of capitalism. The difference between the two is that in a utopic capitalist society, nothing is taken from anyone.

Bingo. Welfare staves off civil unrest. Did you read what I wrote? We agree entirely.

Giving all your money to a burgler may stave off getting a beating, but that's hardly standing up for what is right.

 

[Archer 007]

Interesting story.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
But, you're still imposing your will on newfangle. It should be his choice and his alone.

I'm sorry but living in any society you are having some of your choices being sacraficed for the society. It is part of living in the society. Whether that be the US or your family.

I'd like to see these staunch capatilists try to run their families like they want the country to run.........

Laiz a Faire Capatilism is just the opposite extreme of communism, both are unhealthy for a society and lead to massive corruption. Look at the Laiz a Faire days of the USA, corruption by corporations was sickening. That's why people turned away from it. Just like the communists the Laiz a Faire proponents can explain in great detail why their theories would work great, but when it comes to real life examples they fall short.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by CIVPhilzilla

Also if you give money to somebody who is out of work and not looking for work, then they wont bother to work as they're getting money for being lazy. Thats why I say scrap welfare, but keep things like temporary Unemployment money to people who just lost their job and need something to support them and their families till they find a new job, if they take to long then they stop getting checks.

Any Unemployment benefits is welfare.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by andrewgprv

Laiz a Faire Capatilism is just the opposite extreme of communism, both are unhealthy for a society and lead to massive corruption. Look at the Laiz a Faire days of the USA, corruption by corporations was sickening. That's why people turned away from it. Just like the communists the Laiz a Faire proponents can explain in great detail why their theories would work great, but when it comes to real life examples they fall short.

I've never seen a rational explanation of how communism would ever work, but whatever.

 

[stormbind]

All of these examples are twisted and do not make good anti-welfare arguments, they are not examples of welfare!

Some are examples of misplaced regulation but that is not the same thing at all.

These stories of failed beauracracy have been given a misleading title, making it nothing more than slander and false-propaganda.

Welfare is limited to policies that guarantee equal oportunities for raw people and nothing more.

Welfare does not include policies that add bias to the free market, though it can "compete" with existing free market solutions. i.e..

With welfare, a national school competes with a private one but in no event does the actual welfare regulate where a private school may operate. Welfare is not designed to interfere with the free market economy, it is designed exclusively to guarantee a minimum standard of living.

Consider the house built dangerously close to the shore; it is simple NOT an example of welfare. It is only an example of misplaced regulation.

People who spread false propaganda should be exposed for what they are and banned from politics; this is not a regulation limiting freedom of speech, it is only a proposed regulation limiting the effects of blatant lies.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I've never seen a rational explanation of how communism would ever work, but whatever.

Similarly, I have never seen an example where lazai faire works. I have seen examples of where it was used... and it resulted in wide spread poverty, disease, famine, squallor, ignorance.

These are not examples of great civilisations, they are the oposite!

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@andrewgprv

I'm sorry but living in any society you are having some of your choices being sacraficed for the society. It is part of living in the society.

This is an almost meaningless statement. Everybody realizes that living in a larger society means sacrificing some personal freedoms.
The questions are about what freedoms should be sacrificed and for what causes.
For example (don't actually answer this as its way off topic):
Some believe that the US needs to re-instate the draft. They believe that this is a necessary sacrifice given their beliefs. Is this a sacrifice and a cause you believe in? Why/why not?

@PontiuthPilate

Corporate welfare isn't bad because it's welfare, it's bad because corporations don't need it.

Are you saying in every single case the corporations don't need it? A corporation is mostly made up of working people not rich CEOs. If the corporation fails due to circumstances beyond their control, then guess what?.....the rich CEO ist still rich. The now unemployed workers who make up the vast majority of the corporation? Not so lucky.

This isn't a case for or against either corporate or individual welfare just trying to show that they're closer than you think.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Are you saying in every single case the corporations don't need it? A corporation is mostly made up of working people not rich CEOs. If the corporation fails due to circumstances beyond their control, then guess what?.....the rich CEO ist still rich. The now unemployed workers who make up the vast majority of the corporation? Not so lucky.

This isn't a case for or against either corporate or individual welfare just trying to show that they're closer than you think.

So CEOS walk away from companies they drove into the ground with impunity - with golden parachutes, in fact - and you're saying the problem is the company isn't efficient enough to survive in the free market without subsidies?

Maybe the problem is that companies routinely cut wages and boost CEO salaries SIMULTANEOUSLY?

Here's a little research project for you. After 9-11 all the airlines DEMANDED huge bailouts from the federal government because nobody wanted to fly anymore - and they got them.

Why don't you find out how much was given? And to which companies?

Now see if you can find the salaries of the CEOs of all the companies that were bailed out.

Now calculate how much cash each CEO would have had to give up out of their salaries - on average - to bail out the airline industry THEMSELVES instead of relying on federal aid.

I'd be extremely interested to see the results. I bet stockholders would be too.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

So CEOS walk away from companies they drove into the ground with impunity

Companies don't always fail because of the CEO. As hard to believe as it may be most CEOs actually want their company to succeed. What do they have to gain by driving it into the ground with impunity?

with golden parachutes

Huh? I stated that the CEOs were rich and would continue to be rich after their company failed. This is because most people who are CEOs are making most of their money off stock and other investments rather than their salary.

and you're saying the problem is the company isn't efficient enough to survive in the free market without subsidies

I never stated why the theoretical company was in trouble.

Maybe the problem is that companies routinely cut wages and boost CEO salaries SIMULTANEOUSLY?

Really? As someone who's actually been personally affected by this , and not some disaffected student with a part time job screaming "Down with Corporate Greed!" I realize this. I also realize that most CEOs don't make the bulk of their money from salaries. Which is why CEOs like the head of Cisco are able to cut their salaries to zero in a PR move and still be rich.

Here's a little research project for you

The only guy I could find extensive info about was the CEO of Delta. He seems to be making the most. His salary is about $800,000/year. With bonuses this comes to about $2.5 million. His stock is valued at about $10 million.

So yearly he receives about $2.5 million. I'll even add in the $10 million on a per year basis and say he makes about $12.5 million from the company.

Delta is the biggest airline in the US. For arguments sake I will say that there are 20 CEOs receiving $12.5 million per year from their companies. I've now completely erred on the side of your argument.

So.....$12.5 million x 20 = $250 million

Airline bailout = $15 billion / $250 million per year = 60 years of CEO salaries

I'd be extremely interested to see the results.

Huh? Obviously you already have these results. Why would you would debate this issue and have such a strong opinion without already knowing the facts and figures?

The fact is that in most large companies the CEOs salary ,while it's quite large compared to the average workers is a very small percentage of total operating costs. In no case I could find was it a large enough amount to keep a failing company afloat for any length of time.

Anyway, I really have only two points on this issue.

1. I'm against Corporate Welfare
2. Cutting corporate welfare hurts the workers much more than the CEO.

 

[bigfatron]

Two thoughts:

First, welfare-less society was tried extensively, through the 18th and 19th centuries. The results were so revolting that even those who benefitted took steps to put in place welfare systems; the results also stimulated the rose of the cooperative movements, socialism and eventually communism, which brought so much harm to the world.

Second, any system at all is capable of abuse, be it absolute laissez faire capitalism or communism, or any compromise in between (and let's face it, every society we are likely to encounter is a compromise between these two extremes). Denouncing a system due to the abuse it suffers is pointless, the logical approach is to consider which system leads to the most desirable outcome and howe to minimise the abuse that is suffered under that system.

The desired outcome is not self-evident: is it maximum freedom of action? maximum opportunity for personal wealth creation? Free-market proponents would argue for these. Yet most people opt for a more conservative approch to their lives, eschewing risk and opportunity for certainty of a minimum standard of living and security. So is it freedom from want and hunger? Is it educational provision for one's children, health care for ones' aged relatives?

Society debates the priorities that define its preferred outcome, often in a skewed way, through the politicians and media. The preferred outcome will, in a democracy, almost certainly be a compromise between the desired outcome of different groups of electors, which is right and proper.

Abuses of process are often used in this debate to imply that the process itself is flawed, yet this is not logical.

You may argue that:
- the process doesn't lead to the desired outcome (in which case identify a process that does better), or
- the desired outcome is wrong (in which case identify a more preferable outcome), or
- the process is being abused (in which case identify a way to address the abuse).

The problem with Newfangle's argument (and that of many commentators) is that he fundamentally disagrees with the desired outcome, but uses abuse of the process to support his argument.

So, if you believe the desired outcome is wrong (e.g. alleviation of poverty for those unable to work in the case of domestic welfare) then state your alternative and give reasons why you think it is better, but don't bring welfare abuse into it, it is irrelevant.

On topic, abuse of corporate welfare stinks, as does any abuse of welfare, but it does not mean that corporate welfare is wrong or bad prima facie.