Welfare... Fucking pisses me off

[rusvik]

Lets start with my schizophrenic brother.

People need to get it through their fucking thick skulls that welfare isn't just about giving money to black women in the Ghetto (as if that is inherently bad too)

Welfare as a universal right is the problem. Of course a society should help those who can't work the sick, the old, children etc, but how do you know much of it couldn't be done voluntarily? An easy fix would be tax breaks for companies who donate to these causes. The private sector would be able to run it all a lot more efficient than the government.

 

[tspesh]

The private sector would be able to run it all a lot more efficient than the government.

Run what exactly?

 

[lukep]

I don't know why this is so fucking hard for people

Welfare isn't bad.

I don't know why this is so fucking hard for socialists...

There are two sides to every welfare transaction... Those who receive the money, and those who it is taken from.

Wealth redistribution is IMMORAL. Paying taxes IS IMMORAL. Just because we don't have an alternative doesn't make it moral, just, or even acceptable.

Your arguments only help perpetuate a system where a government gets to heavily tax you and give away your hard earned money to people who THEY think are deserving, while you may not.

It's not so much the fact that wefare queens exist; it's that some senator you didn't vote for gets to send those welfare queens YOUR MONEY regardless of your beliefs.

And there ain't jack shit you can do about it except go to jail.

The issue is so complicated and welfare isn't inherently bad but like any system it's not perfect. Some people (a minority ) will also look to abuse it.

It's not complicated at all... It's plain obvious; Your money is being forcibly taken from you. There's nothing you can do about it. What's so complicated about that?

Oh, wait, I get it. You are receiving welfare yourself? :disgust:

Lets start with my schizophrenic brother.

People need to get it through their fucking thick skulls that welfare isn't just about giving money to black women in the Ghetto (as if that is inherently bad too)

Oh we get it. At least the Libertarians do.

We get that YOUR FAMILY is being a bunch of SELFISH PRICKS accepting money for your brother's well-being that is forcibly taken from other people in your country. You justify that everyone else is doing it and society is just structured this way, but the root problem remains and the shitty, tax-filled world we live in is perpetuated.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that your brother has problems... I'm saying the socialistic system sucks and you're defending it.

:boid:

Is there a better solution? Perhaps. Consider the basic income guarantee, which could potentially replace many current social programs...

If you take the time to give it some thought, you can see how it could address many of the problems with the current welfare system/social programs. And before you dismiss it out of hand as some crazy socialist scheme, consider that the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek himself supported a basic income. Milton Friedman, another central figure in libertarian economic thought, supported a similar concept - the negative income tax, and, in fact, a NIT was almost passed under Nixon in the 70s.

It's too bad more libertarians don't support these ideas, as they clearly have merit, and would go a long way toward placating those on the left.

WTF? Is this some Sick attempt at trolling?

DUDE. It's not just Socialism... It's to Communistic for that!

From your own source, there appears to be a problem with this concept that I kinda doubt any Libertarian would ever get behind:

Seriously, how did you possibly come up with this as a "solution" to welfare?

Competition, perhaps, but it's no solution!

 

[bitsdawg]

I think the only thing welfare does at this point is keep the peace.

This is a reason for welfare, yes.

And Medicare is something that most of us pay into all our lives - it is not welfare.

 

[Crynos]

Lets start with my schizophrenic brother.

People need to get it through their fucking thick skulls that welfare isn't just about giving money to black women in the Ghetto (as if that is inherently bad too)

I think you completely missed the point of the post. A lot of Libertarians (I won't say most, because I don't know the number), aren't opposed to voluntary charity. So you act like if welfare went away all these people with legitimate problems would be out to dry. If I had my 42% back from the government, I would sure as shit donate a good amount of money to charity, and I would make sure it actually went to people that needed it. I know there are people out there with legitimate problems--and I'm very willing to help.

So basically, it's not "welfare vs. people getting nothing". It's all an issue with the government feeling it's their prerogative to take the money and distribute it however they see fit (so that they can get reelected).

 

[Pseudo Nym]

WTF? Is this some Sick attempt at trolling?

Maybe you should give it half a chance before a knee-jerk dismissal. Maybe it'd be worth your time to understand why libertarian economists support the idea.

From your own source, there appears to be a problem with this concept that I kinda doubt any Libertarian would ever get behind:

Any reason you left out the other 2/3rds of proposed funding sources?

• Elimination of current income support programs and tax deductions
• Repayment of the grant at death or retirement
• Land and natural resource taxes
• Pollution taxes
• Fees from government-created monopolies (such as the broadcast spectrum and utilities)
• Collective resource ownership Capitalism 3.0
• Universal stock ownership Capital ownership SESJ
• Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises
• A National Mutual Fund
• Money creation or seignorage
• Tariffs, the lottery, or sin taxes
• Technology Taxes
• Tobin Tax
• Value added tax or other Consumption taxes
• Demurrage

Seriously, how did you possibly come up with this as a "solution" to welfare

Hey, it wasn't me - as I mentioned, guys like Hayek and Friedman (as well as other Nobel prize-winning economists). Or are they not "true" libertarians now?

Ever heard of the FairTax? It's a primarily libertarian proposal that includes a "prebate" - a payment to every person (no means-testing) meant to zero out any tax burden up to the poverty level, but which could be considered a limited form of basic income.

Anyway, here's Milton Friedman discussing welfare and his negative income tax proposal:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82SG_EpCsVs"]Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman - YouTube[/ame]


He talks about the NIT starting around 25:00, but the whole hour-long program is worth a watch.

 

[tspesh]

I don't know why this is so fucking hard for socialists...

There are two sides to every welfare transaction... Those who receive the money, and those who it is taken from.

Wealth redistribution is IMMORAL. Paying taxes IS IMMORAL. Just because we don't have an alternative doesn't make it moral, just, or even acceptable.

I think it's immoral to allow people to thrive in a society and let them ignore people who don't have the capability to thrive.

Tom-a-to tom-otto

The irony is that the people with the capability to thrive also have the capability to leave. So...leave.

 

[tspesh]

We get that YOUR FAMILY is being a bunch of SELFISH PRICKS accepting money for your brother's well-being that is forcibly taken from other people in your country. You justify that everyone else is doing it and society is just structured this way, but the root problem remains and the shitty, tax-filled world we live in is perpetuated.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that your brother has problems... I'm saying the socialistic system sucks and you're defending it.

You have no fucking clue man...none at all. I can't even get mad at this statement because it's backed my so much naiveness. Until you've walked a mile in my shoes, kindly shut the fuck up.

 

[tspesh]

So basically, it's not "welfare vs. people getting nothing". It's all an issue with the government feeling it's their prerogative to take the money and distribute it however they see fit (so that they can get reelected).

Listen, the issue isn't the system, it's the electorate. You want to make Obama-promise-level change (ie any actual change) then you need to educate the electorate. That'll never happen.

A good politicians gets laws passed. A good electorate makes sure the laws are good ones.

 

[tspesh]

"welfare" programs aren't even close to our countries biggest expenditure
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Not to mention:
Yahoo! Groups

So it's very difficult for me to watch a bunch of well-off (mostly white) male americans bitch and moan about 14% of their 40% federal tax going to unfortunate fellow Americans. Yeah, a lot of people get money that don't deserve it.

I was raised by a single mother who busted her ass off and always lived in fear of a missed mortgage payment, she qualified for certain programs and almost never took advantage.

I've worked in social services before (3+ years following college). I've seen the dichotomy that exists on the other side of the tracks first hand (aside from living it myself).

There were mothers who had the world spit on them and throw them into a shitty situation and yet they worked their ass off and tried to raise their children to be productive members of society, some succeeded, some failed.

I've also seen fat lazy bitchy wenches that live with their parents at 35 and let their mom watch their kids while they watched Jerry Springer and collected food stamps that they would trade for cigarettes and use their welfare check to buy bigger TV's than I own.

That shit happens. There are also greedy white men who aren't content being millionaires and make themselves billionaires by stealing money from well-intentioned successful individuals.

The world sucks for you because you've moved into a higher tax bracket. Cry me a fucking river.

 

[ryanjm]

Just an FYI, but Self-employment tax is not some super special tax to screw over all of us entrepreneurs, it's just social security and medicare tax that would have been withheld from your paycheck if you were employed by someone else.

Source: Self-Employment Tax (Social Security and Medicare Taxes)

Also, thank Obama/Congress/Allah for lowering this tax rate by 2% in 2010.

 

[danke]

You have no fucking clue man...none at all. I can't even get mad at this statement because it's backed my so much naiveness. Until you've walked a mile in my shoes, kindly shut the fuck up.

I probably have lived just as bad if not worst. Grew up to immigrant parents in the Bronx during the crack cocaine epademic... Yada, yada, yada sell a book to Oprah. So I'll fucking say it.

IF YOUR FAMILY IS ON WELFARE THEY ARE FUCKING LAZY.

]I think it's immoral to allow people to thrive in a society[/B] and let them ignore people who don't have the capability to thrive.

Tom-a-to tom-otto

The irony is that the people with the capability to thrive also have the capability to leave. So...leave.

Do us all a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEARN SOMETHING.

This statement alone is telling about how you feel about people.

No one allows ANYONE to do anything in America except drive their own automobiles on the roads.

FREEDOM MEANS YOU'RE FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT.

FREEDOM MEANS YOU CHOOSE TO BE RICH OR SUCCESSFUL.

Poor people say they want to be rich, but most of them are honestly full of excuses... and your enabling isn't helping them.

Anyone who's ever talked to a poor person will know first hand out emotionally weak and lazy they are. If you're in America and you work hard enough, long enough, and are open to change you will find some degree of success eventually.

I love how people talk about those who want to abolish food stamps and the like as if we don't like those people. Au contraire. We like them more because we're willing to be honest and show them the ladder out. Would it be easy? No.

But, nothing is easy. LIFE IS A ZERO SUM GAME.

Someone has to eat and likewise someone has to get less. When you start living and accepting reality for what it is you'll stop being fucking socialist liberals.

[if I make little sense I just got in from tennis and I need a goddamn shower... FUCK!!!]

I think the fundamental difference between selfmade rich people and systematically poor people is the definition of hard work. Getting and working two jobs isn't hard work, it's monotenous and time consuming, but it's not hard work to me. Shit, I bicycle 100 miles sometimes just for shits and giggles so I don't think being tired qualifies as "hard work". Hard work is stretching your skills and learning all that you can. Hard work is having the courage to do things that you've never done before because you will never let go of this vision of how you want life to be.

There were times that I would think about work while I was fucking someone. That's how hard I was working. Getting a job and waiting for a paycheck is just stupid and easy. If everyone's doing it, it's easy. It may be time consuming, but it's easy.

 

[computergames]

Better, yet unemployment across the Euro zone is higher than the US, and in some areas (ie Spain) is over 20%.

However, for the most "socialist" countries in Europe, the scandinavian ones are all doing vastly better than the US with regards to employment, debt and I believe also a higher median "riches".

Now, I do believe if you take the average income/riches US scores higher because you have 1% of 1% (or whatever) hoarding/earning a lot of money.

Now, southern Europe, well, yes, they are dragging rest of EU down. Anyways, you can't compare European countries like you can compare States in US. While the European countries may slowly get legislation etc. common to all countries, we are still close to year zero (if at all we reached this, that would be quite a debate at least) while the situation is quite different for the states in US

 

[potentialeight]

When I was in high school, if your parents made under x/year (idk what x was) then your lunch was only $0.50 or something instead of $1.50 or whatever it was back then because the gov paid the difference. If you made even less, then your lunch was free each day. I was one of those kids who got the $0.50 lunch, and I generally paid an extra $1.50-$2.50 each day just during my lunch period on other random shit like chips. #leechonsociety

 

[eliquid]

Lets start with my schizophrenic brother.

People need to get it through their fucking thick skulls that welfare isn't just about giving money to black women in the Ghetto (as if that is inherently bad too)

Not trying to be cold, but thats the problem right there.. what you wrote.

You wanna be your brother's keeper? Awesome. I respect that.

You think I should pay taxes to help your brother? Fuck you and any system that thinks that.

Point is, if you wanna donate away XX% of your income to your brother to help him out and such, then I have no problem. You wanna smoke some weed and chill out late at night, go right ahead.

When you start dictating what I do and how I do it, like I have to give XX% of my income to your brother and I can't smoke weed when I want, thats when I have an issue.

Do what you want, but don't tell me to to do the same unless I am committing some type of harmful crime.

 

[conv3rsion]

Why? How would the resources that fund welfare be used if they weren't confiscated by the state? How would this use affect the people you believe need help from welfare programs? Unless you can account for how millions of people would voluntarily use this money if they got to keep it and how it would affect those currently on welfare, you can't say that we need welfare. How do you know that the outcome wouldn't be better without welfare?

Also, many of the situations where people need help are created by government intervention in the first place. It's not compassionate to blindly support welfare programs without asking a few very important questions:

1. Why do these problems exist in the first place?

2. Is this the best use of these resources in resolving the problem?

3. Do these policies actually solve the original problem?

4. Are other problems created by the intervention?

If your actual intent is to help others, supporting anything government does without being able to answer the questions above is wrong because you may be creating a worse outcome for those you supposedly want to help.

Note: I really don't want to get involved in a debate, but I hadn't seen some of these points raised, so I thought I'd post.

Do you want to get stabbed walking down the street? Do you think that not having welfare makes that more or less likely to happen?

 

[JakeStratham]

Do you want to get stabbed walking down the street? Do you think that not having welfare makes that more or less likely to happen?

 

[danke]

Not trying to be cold, but thats the problem right there.. what you wrote.

You wanna be your brother's keeper? Awesome. I respect that.

You think I should pay taxes to help your brother? Fuck you and any system that thinks that.

Point is, if you wanna donate away XX% of your income to your brother to help him out and such, then I have no problem. You wanna smoke some weed and chill out late at night, go right ahead.

When you start dictating what I do and how I do it, like I have to give XX% of my income to your brother and I can't smoke weed when I want, thats when I have an issue.

Do what you want, but don't tell me to to do the same unless I am committing some type of harmful crime.

Someone needs to tell this guy that it's not about race. Jesus Christ. I give more to charity that I give to the Government and I'll never feel bad about it.

 

[conv3rsion]

. Paying taxes IS IMMORAL.

No, its not. By CHOOSING to live in [insert your country here] you have VOLUNTARILY chosen to enter into the binding obligations associated with and enforced in that location (which it so happens are often democratically decided). Therefore, taxation is not immoral. You do not have to pay taxes provided you voluntarily choose to live somewhere where they are not collected. That somewhere will probably not have a very strong military to protect you or your assets, but it is your choice.

No one will FORCE YOU AGAINST YOUR WILL to stay in [insert your country here]. Upon leaving your country and renouncing your former citizenship, you will no longer be subjected to that country's taxation. For US citizens, the IRS has a form for this.

So get off the fucking bullshit about taxation being immoral.

 

[BigWill]

Welfare as a universal right is the problem. Of course a society should help those who can't work the sick, the old, children etc, but how do you know much of it couldn't be done voluntarily? An easy fix would be tax breaks for companies who donate to these causes. The private sector would be able to run it all a lot more efficient than the government.

Remember family? Why couldn't this guy with schizo brother learn to man the fuck up, quite being a little pussy ass piece of shit and help his OWN brother out.