Welfare should be eliminated.
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Welfare should be eliminated.
We don't need it.
There is no need. We are getting lazier and lazier and people should learn to work for themselves, instead of off of the government. And some might say, "children need it," but, if you can't afford living for yourself, don't have children. Easy as that. Therefore; welfare should be eliminated.
Besides you get immigrants that come to Canada and the USA and live 10 families to a home and collect welfare, from Pakistan and Somalia, scamming the government..
What do you say??
I rather give people just barely enough to survive, then having desperate starving people all over killing, stealing, extorting, kidnaping, for survival. Humans are dangerous if they got nothing to lose.
Take away welfare, but before you do, build yourself a 12 foot high security fence around your house, and hire a security guard with a automatic rifle to stand guard. That's standard in country's with no welfare. You can forget about feeling safe anywhere you go.
There are no jobs. You can't produce demand for something if there is no demand or the demand is already being met. You may take it from someone, but then that person is out of a job.
What you needed 400 people to produce a car 60 years ago, 4 people produce the same quantity today.
People don't have opportunity.
It's not the 1960s.
All our jobs are on china now.
The rich do that and a lot more to make sure they collect as much money a possible. (and then hide it), the poor are not the problem.
Lack of Opportunity is the problem.
My wife is the perfect example. She has spent the last two years looking for a job.
Now that she finally has one, she has become the top rated employee in the first 4 months,
And has been on top ever since.
I'm the perfect example right now too.
Took over a supervisors job someone quit a few months ago.
We are the only company schedule to deliver on time right now.
Never had a opportunity like this since I started 13 years ago.
Am I working hard? Yes. But only cause the opportunity to work hard is available.
Pretty much without exception I've found that those who want jobs (like really want jobs) have them and those who are really ambitious have high paying jobs, because they will do whatever it takes to get one. Faxing and emailing resumes is only a start, if you really want a job you show up at job sites at 7 A.M. every morning and keep pestering. Eventually someone with one too many hangovers won't show up for work when they are desperately needed. -
There is a moving outfit in town here who is desperately looking for help, but pretty well without exception every one he hires has no savvy, gumption or work ethic and are not reliable. When there is a house load of furniture that has to be moved at a certain time and date you can't depend on people who will show up if and when they feel like it. If I was five years younger I'd help the guy out, but I've passed the point now where I can do heavy manual labour for 40 hours a week.
The opportunity to work hard is omnipresent what you're talking about is a jobbing hard, if you don't confuse the two you could retire much earlier. Remember who you're working for. Ideally you should work hard to get out of a job situation and into a situation where you work harder and longer for yourself. Cut out the boss (middle man) working for yourself is the most efficient use of your limited time.
That's alright you don't owe me anything, put your wallet away.
Certainly welfare should be eliminated and it could be by simply adopting a GAI framework similar to what has been proposed before and is again seriously being contemplated by the Swiss.
How many trillions did the bankers and investment crooks sponge of the tax payers for tanking the economy? Do all the people on welfare come close to bilking the system as those crooks?
With every form of taxation taken into consideration, we are paying over half our wages to the government. If a person gets $10 grand a year from welfare, over $5 grand goes back to government coffers and many small businesses get to stay open. Shutting down welfare is completely asinine. Go after those who really sponge off the system.
With every form of taxation taken into consideration, we are paying over half our wages to the government. If a person gets $10 grand a year from welfare, over $5 grand goes back to government coffers and many small businesses get to stay open. Shutting down welfare is completely asinine. Go after those who really sponge off the system.
When I first started in the work force the typical pyramid was 7 X at the top, now it's likely 50 X or more. It's gotten not only obscene but criminal to boot!
Eliminating welfare is a bit extreme but it needs a serious overhaul. Workfare for healthy people that need a hand, welfare or whatever you want to call it for those that cannot work. The lazy can starve. No government money for immigrants..
Yes, by all means - eliminate corporate welfare:
CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
I have written about corporate welfare many times. I like to discuss this topic because almost every day we hear from conservative pundits and politicians that we need to end our culture of entitlements. The Republican Party has become particularly adept at getting America to believe that "dependence on government" is an economic and cultural sin that needs to be eradicated.
But, as I've pointed out in numerous posts (here, here, and here), government assistance comes in many forms, especially for the private sector.
FAVORABLE LEGISLATION: Market subsidies, market protections, market interventions, regulatory favors, favorable legislation, legal protections, ex-post facto reclassification's, government spending (Keynesian), artificially low interest rates (monetary policy), government takeovers of private sector "assets" (not what you think), and government bailouts (all discussed here and here) are only the tip of the ice berg.
SUBSIDIZING MARKET EFFICIENCY VIA SOCIAL POLICY: On a general level the state also has to protect freedom and individual rights, which subsidizes markets by helping markets function more efficiently. More specifically, as I've pointed elsewhere (and in my book), the modern state has to work consistently to remove or soften the impact of market enemies like market conspiracies (monopoly, oligopolies, etc.), societal prejudices (racism, sexism, etc.), government-corporate collusion or capture (favorable legislation, slavery, bailouts, regulatory capture, etc.), hereditary privileges (inheritances, wealth transfers, etc.), and outright corruption and theft.
HIDDEN GIFTS: Then we have "hidden" corporate subsidies that come in the form of tariff protections, dirt cheap land leases, royalty gifts to the oil industry, more than a trillion dollars in tax gifts, and increasingly longer copyright protections which are coupled with broader interpretations of what can be patented (especially good for drug and food manufacturers), which the New Yorker's James Surowiecki discusses here.
All of these subsidies, protections, and legislative gifts are backstopped and transferred by the state.
The reason I bring all of this up is because several of my conservative FB friends continue to point to the cost of government spending for housing and other welfare related expenditures. They claim it's busting the national bank. They're wrong.
The problem is that they never provide numbers and, quite frankly, don't know what the hell they're talking about (e.g. they like to conflate social security and Medicare with our budget mess when neither have anything to do with our current budget picture). My concern is that they choose to ignore (or never learn?) what Mike Sinn points out here.
Specifically, the almost $100 billion that we give as direct government subsidies for "corporate welfare" far outpaces the almost $60 billion we spend annually on traditional "social welfare" programs. Specifically, we spend $17.6 billion on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (or TANF) and $41.7 billion on housing programs - where 54 percent of HUD-assisted households goes to the elderly or disabled - which adds up to $40 billion less than what we spend on direct corporate subsidies.
This corporate-social welfare gap explodes far beyond $40 billion if we consider the more than $4 trillion (yes, that's a trillion with a "t") that's been turned over to Wall Street and the financial sector since 2008, and the $16 trillion that we're now on the hook for as we continue to guarantee and subsidize our financial sectors economic recovery.
Here's what we should all understand from what's presented here. The GOP and their media noise machine on the right (Fox News is not alone) only want to cut welfare for the poor. They want you and everyone else to ignore corporate welfare for the private sector ($100 billion in subsidies + over a trillion in tax expenditure gifts + the trillions in post-2008 assistance).
The $40 billion gap between what we spend on direct corporate welfare ($100 billion) and traditional social welfare ($59.3 billion) is actually much larger. Much, much larger. The trillion dollars we give away in tax breaks (tax "expenditures") and the multi-trillion bailout program(s) that we crafted for Wall Street after 2008 should be ample evidence of this.
MARK MARTINEZ' BLOG: CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
The sooner the better!
CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
I have written about corporate welfare many times. I like to discuss this topic because almost every day we hear from conservative pundits and politicians that we need to end our culture of entitlements. The Republican Party has become particularly adept at getting America to believe that "dependence on government" is an economic and cultural sin that needs to be eradicated.
But, as I've pointed out in numerous posts (here, here, and here), government assistance comes in many forms, especially for the private sector.
FAVORABLE LEGISLATION: Market subsidies, market protections, market interventions, regulatory favors, favorable legislation, legal protections, ex-post facto reclassification's, government spending (Keynesian), artificially low interest rates (monetary policy), government takeovers of private sector "assets" (not what you think), and government bailouts (all discussed here and here) are only the tip of the ice berg.
SUBSIDIZING MARKET EFFICIENCY VIA SOCIAL POLICY: On a general level the state also has to protect freedom and individual rights, which subsidizes markets by helping markets function more efficiently. More specifically, as I've pointed elsewhere (and in my book), the modern state has to work consistently to remove or soften the impact of market enemies like market conspiracies (monopoly, oligopolies, etc.), societal prejudices (racism, sexism, etc.), government-corporate collusion or capture (favorable legislation, slavery, bailouts, regulatory capture, etc.), hereditary privileges (inheritances, wealth transfers, etc.), and outright corruption and theft.
HIDDEN GIFTS: Then we have "hidden" corporate subsidies that come in the form of tariff protections, dirt cheap land leases, royalty gifts to the oil industry, more than a trillion dollars in tax gifts, and increasingly longer copyright protections which are coupled with broader interpretations of what can be patented (especially good for drug and food manufacturers), which the New Yorker's James Surowiecki discusses here.
All of these subsidies, protections, and legislative gifts are backstopped and transferred by the state.
The reason I bring all of this up is because several of my conservative FB friends continue to point to the cost of government spending for housing and other welfare related expenditures. They claim it's busting the national bank. They're wrong.
The problem is that they never provide numbers and, quite frankly, don't know what the hell they're talking about (e.g. they like to conflate social security and Medicare with our budget mess when neither have anything to do with our current budget picture). My concern is that they choose to ignore (or never learn?) what Mike Sinn points out here.
Specifically, the almost $100 billion that we give as direct government subsidies for "corporate welfare" far outpaces the almost $60 billion we spend annually on traditional "social welfare" programs. Specifically, we spend $17.6 billion on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (or TANF) and $41.7 billion on housing programs - where 54 percent of HUD-assisted households goes to the elderly or disabled - which adds up to $40 billion less than what we spend on direct corporate subsidies.
This corporate-social welfare gap explodes far beyond $40 billion if we consider the more than $4 trillion (yes, that's a trillion with a "t") that's been turned over to Wall Street and the financial sector since 2008, and the $16 trillion that we're now on the hook for as we continue to guarantee and subsidize our financial sectors economic recovery.
Here's what we should all understand from what's presented here. The GOP and their media noise machine on the right (Fox News is not alone) only want to cut welfare for the poor. They want you and everyone else to ignore corporate welfare for the private sector ($100 billion in subsidies + over a trillion in tax expenditure gifts + the trillions in post-2008 assistance).
The $40 billion gap between what we spend on direct corporate welfare ($100 billion) and traditional social welfare ($59.3 billion) is actually much larger. Much, much larger. The trillion dollars we give away in tax breaks (tax "expenditures") and the multi-trillion bailout program(s) that we crafted for Wall Street after 2008 should be ample evidence of this.
MARK MARTINEZ' BLOG: CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
The sooner the better!
Yes, by all means - eliminate corporate welfare:
CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
I have written about corporate welfare many times. I like to discuss this topic because almost every day we hear from conservative pundits and politicians that we need to end our culture of entitlements. The Republican Party has become particularly adept at getting America to believe that "dependence on government" is an economic and cultural sin that needs to be eradicated.
But, as I've pointed out in numerous posts (here, here, and here), government assistance comes in many forms, especially for the private sector.
FAVORABLE LEGISLATION: Market subsidies, market protections, market interventions, regulatory favors, favorable legislation, legal protections, ex-post facto reclassification's, government spending (Keynesian), artificially low interest rates (monetary policy), government takeovers of private sector "assets" (not what you think), and government bailouts (all discussed here and here) are only the tip of the ice berg.
SUBSIDIZING MARKET EFFICIENCY VIA SOCIAL POLICY: On a general level the state also has to protect freedom and individual rights, which subsidizes markets by helping markets function more efficiently. More specifically, as I've pointed elsewhere (and in my book), the modern state has to work consistently to remove or soften the impact of market enemies like market conspiracies (monopoly, oligopolies, etc.), societal prejudices (racism, sexism, etc.), government-corporate collusion or capture (favorable legislation, slavery, bailouts, regulatory capture, etc.), hereditary privileges (inheritances, wealth transfers, etc.), and outright corruption and theft.
HIDDEN GIFTS: Then we have "hidden" corporate subsidies that come in the form of tariff protections, dirt cheap land leases, royalty gifts to the oil industry, more than a trillion dollars in tax gifts, and increasingly longer copyright protections which are coupled with broader interpretations of what can be patented (especially good for drug and food manufacturers), which the New Yorker's James Surowiecki discusses here.
All of these subsidies, protections, and legislative gifts are backstopped and transferred by the state.
The reason I bring all of this up is because several of my conservative FB friends continue to point to the cost of government spending for housing and other welfare related expenditures. They claim it's busting the national bank. They're wrong.
The problem is that they never provide numbers and, quite frankly, don't know what the hell they're talking about (e.g. they like to conflate social security and Medicare with our budget mess when neither have anything to do with our current budget picture). My concern is that they choose to ignore (or never learn?) what Mike Sinn points out here.
Specifically, the almost $100 billion that we give as direct government subsidies for "corporate welfare" far outpaces the almost $60 billion we spend annually on traditional "social welfare" programs. Specifically, we spend $17.6 billion on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (or TANF) and $41.7 billion on housing programs - where 54 percent of HUD-assisted households goes to the elderly or disabled - which adds up to $40 billion less than what we spend on direct corporate subsidies.
This corporate-social welfare gap explodes far beyond $40 billion if we consider the more than $4 trillion (yes, that's a trillion with a "t") that's been turned over to Wall Street and the financial sector since 2008, and the $16 trillion that we're now on the hook for as we continue to guarantee and subsidize our financial sectors economic recovery.
Here's what we should all understand from what's presented here. The GOP and their media noise machine on the right (Fox News is not alone) only want to cut welfare for the poor. They want you and everyone else to ignore corporate welfare for the private sector ($100 billion in subsidies + over a trillion in tax expenditure gifts + the trillions in post-2008 assistance).
The $40 billion gap between what we spend on direct corporate welfare ($100 billion) and traditional social welfare ($59.3 billion) is actually much larger. Much, much larger. The trillion dollars we give away in tax breaks (tax "expenditures") and the multi-trillion bailout program(s) that we crafted for Wall Street after 2008 should be ample evidence of this.
MARK MARTINEZ' BLOG: CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
The sooner the better!
A rather one sided oped at best and mostly BS at worst. Much of what you claim to be corporate welfare is incentives for business to create jobs. If there is no incentive investors w,ill take their money elseware.
Not really.
Many corporations don't even pay taxes and have sheltered trillions overseas as I have documented on this forum. Therefore, the handouts do not constitute "incentives" since they have not been used to create jobs and we have seen too little job growth. They are welfare as the trickle down "theory" is nothing but totally bogus. In fact, we had more job growth when taxes were higher under Clinton as I also documented previously.
Many corporations don't even pay taxes and have sheltered trillions overseas as I have documented on this forum. Therefore, the handouts do not constitute "incentives" since they have not been used to create jobs and we have seen too little job growth. They are welfare as the trickle down "theory" is nothing but totally bogus. In fact, we had more job growth when taxes were higher under Clinton as I also documented previously.
Your BF Obama loves to give out Corporate Welfare... will the love affair ever end??
GM, Solyndra and so on...
You agree with that kook Sarah Palin . Amazing . How do you like Solyandra ?Yes, by all means - eliminate corporate welfare:
CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
I have written about corporate welfare many times. I like to discuss this topic because almost every day we hear from conservative pundits and politicians that we need to end our culture of entitlements. The Republican Party has become particularly adept at getting America to believe that "dependence on government" is an economic and cultural sin that needs to be eradicated.
But, as I've pointed out in numerous posts (here, here, and here), government assistance comes in many forms, especially for the private sector.
FAVORABLE LEGISLATION: Market subsidies, market protections, market interventions, regulatory favors, favorable legislation, legal protections, ex-post facto reclassification's, government spending (Keynesian), artificially low interest rates (monetary policy), government takeovers of private sector "assets" (not what you think), and government bailouts (all discussed here and here) are only the tip of the ice berg.
SUBSIDIZING MARKET EFFICIENCY VIA SOCIAL POLICY: On a general level the state also has to protect freedom and individual rights, which subsidizes markets by helping markets function more efficiently. More specifically, as I've pointed elsewhere (and in my book), the modern state has to work consistently to remove or soften the impact of market enemies like market conspiracies (monopoly, oligopolies, etc.), societal prejudices (racism, sexism, etc.), government-corporate collusion or capture (favorable legislation, slavery, bailouts, regulatory capture, etc.), hereditary privileges (inheritances, wealth transfers, etc.), and outright corruption and theft.
HIDDEN GIFTS: Then we have "hidden" corporate subsidies that come in the form of tariff protections, dirt cheap land leases, royalty gifts to the oil industry, more than a trillion dollars in tax gifts, and increasingly longer copyright protections which are coupled with broader interpretations of what can be patented (especially good for drug and food manufacturers), which the New Yorker's James Surowiecki discusses here.
All of these subsidies, protections, and legislative gifts are backstopped and transferred by the state.
The reason I bring all of this up is because several of my conservative FB friends continue to point to the cost of government spending for housing and other welfare related expenditures. They claim it's busting the national bank. They're wrong.
The problem is that they never provide numbers and, quite frankly, don't know what the hell they're talking about (e.g. they like to conflate social security and Medicare with our budget mess when neither have anything to do with our current budget picture). My concern is that they choose to ignore (or never learn?) what Mike Sinn points out here.
Specifically, the almost $100 billion that we give as direct government subsidies for "corporate welfare" far outpaces the almost $60 billion we spend annually on traditional "social welfare" programs. Specifically, we spend $17.6 billion on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (or TANF) and $41.7 billion on housing programs - where 54 percent of HUD-assisted households goes to the elderly or disabled - which adds up to $40 billion less than what we spend on direct corporate subsidies.
This corporate-social welfare gap explodes far beyond $40 billion if we consider the more than $4 trillion (yes, that's a trillion with a "t") that's been turned over to Wall Street and the financial sector since 2008, and the $16 trillion that we're now on the hook for as we continue to guarantee and subsidize our financial sectors economic recovery.
Here's what we should all understand from what's presented here. The GOP and their media noise machine on the right (Fox News is not alone) only want to cut welfare for the poor. They want you and everyone else to ignore corporate welfare for the private sector ($100 billion in subsidies + over a trillion in tax expenditure gifts + the trillions in post-2008 assistance).
The $40 billion gap between what we spend on direct corporate welfare ($100 billion) and traditional social welfare ($59.3 billion) is actually much larger. Much, much larger. The trillion dollars we give away in tax breaks (tax "expenditures") and the multi-trillion bailout program(s) that we crafted for Wall Street after 2008 should be ample evidence of this.
MARK MARTINEZ' BLOG: CORPORATE WELFARE vs. SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING ... IT'S NOT JUST A $40 BILLION GAP
The sooner the better!
Welfare should be eliminated.
We don't need it.
There is no need. We are getting lazier and lazier and people should learn to work for themselves, instead of off of the government. And some might say, "children need it," but, if you can't afford living for yourself, don't have children. Easy as that. Therefore; welfare should be eliminated.
Besides you get immigrants that come to Canada and the USA and live 10 families to a home and collect welfare, from Pakistan and Somalia, scamming the government..
What do you say??
How do I vote on such a simplistic yes/no poll?
I'd answer both. In short, I'd rather government cut welfare but I still give to charity myself. This way though we can ensure help goes to those who really need it. It also cuts out unionized bureaucrat. it also ensures the money given will go towards giving people a hand up not a hand out.
Anyway, in the end I did not vote since the options are too simplistic.
I still don't understand how anyone can begrudge a person doing well. If they work hard and make a million or so, why should they apologize? Because they're successful, why are they penalized and hated? I believe its envy to the nth degree and people are jealous. They pay more than their share of taxes but its seems not to be enough for some "progressives". How much tax is enough? 90%?
What would be the incentive to working hard to improve your lot in life if there are those who want to take it all away?
We're becoming such a "me" society - i.e. what's in it for ME - its incredible. Stop being lazy and doing "sit-ins" in the parks, stop demanding stuff from other people; get an education and bloody work for your money and perhaps you too can become wealthy. Envy and jealousy won't get you anywhere and certainly won't feed, cloth and house you.
JMHO
What would be the incentive to working hard to improve your lot in life if there are those who want to take it all away?
We're becoming such a "me" society - i.e. what's in it for ME - its incredible. Stop being lazy and doing "sit-ins" in the parks, stop demanding stuff from other people; get an education and bloody work for your money and perhaps you too can become wealthy. Envy and jealousy won't get you anywhere and certainly won't feed, cloth and house you.
JMHO