CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[JimBowie1958]

And, more...

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
      From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem

Yeah lets see, on one hand I can swallow my pride and take government welfare or I can starve.

Let me think on this one.....

Good grief, you are actually arguing that welfare is a crippling activity for the poor?

I agree it *can* be but it is not always the case. There have been times and cases where the government bureaucrats seemed to prefer keeping people poor, but since the 1990s the work requirements to get welfare, until recently dropped by our Marxist in Chief, was reducing this dependence as the work requirement got people out in circulation and helped them to get jobs.

 

[Andylusion]

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

You are assuming. You are assuming that if they get subsidies, then they must 'need' them.

That's a false assumption. When Hawaii implemented a law to allow children without health insurance to be covered by the state, instantly hundreds of thousands of children applied for coverage. Many more than the state thought existed.

On further investigation, they found that people canceled coverage for their children, in order to qualify for free assistance.

Similarly there is a direct correlation between people who have government assistance not finding a job, and those who do, who do find a job. People who have unemployment compensation, are less likely to find work. When the unemployment compensation runs out, people magically find work.

If I handed out free bread on the sidewalk, hundreds of people would come by to get the bread. That doesn't mean, that in my middle-class area, that everyone is secretly starving to death. People are willing to take, whatever people will give them.

I'm the same way. Right now, I have subsidized health insurance. For the last 20 years, I've paid for my own health insurance. Now, I have the tax payers paying my health insurance. I could still pay for my health insurance... but if the tax payers are so dumb, that they will pay my bills for me... then why not?

See the problem? You are assuming that if people take whatever money the government is giving out, that this means they "need" it. Most don't "NEED" it.

In fact, in your country I know of people who collect all kinds of government assistance, and they don't need it. I know a guy right now, who is a drug, and has quit every job, because he likes to sit at home and smoke pot, and collect your tax money.

Could he work a job? Sure. He is a fully able bodied person. But as long as you are willing to pay him to sit on his butt and do nothing, under your delusion that he "needs it", he's more than willing to play video games and watch movies he illegally downloaded.

 

[Wyatt earp]

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance.

Strawman, Obama care took care of that, didn't it? Oh, yeah, it didn't. Sorry, not a strawman after all. Guess we should let the libs "solve" all our problems.

He expanded Medicaid, actually, so his plan went a very long way toward solving that problem.

Except for the funding it part, which is why he has managed to double the national debt.

The only reason it's not completely solved is because Republicans are imaginary-friend worshiping psychopaths who think Obama has the mark of the beast.

No Republicans worship imaginary friends, and that you would say something as ignorant as that proves you have no grasp on that topic either.

You can't argue that the GOP fanaticism with saying no to everything Obama proposes is anything but religious devotion.

The non-funding of medicaid is also a GOP problem. Obama's proposals for taxes were wiped out with the Norquist pledge.

And, naturally, any cuts to the $50 billion F-35 program or other military boondoggles would be sacrilege, in keeping with the GOP's government bible.

naturally, any cuts to the $50 billion F-35 program or other military boondoggles would be sacrilege, in keeping with the GOP's government bible.

I will never get why liberals hate high paying union jobs.

 

[Andylusion]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

That's the CliffNotes version.

That is very weak soup to blame the mortgage meltdown of 2008 on FDR who died in 1945.

Modern government is not going to return to its agricultural past and shrinka magically down to its dimensions of 1900.

You do not help your cause with such contorted reasoning.

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

That's the CliffNotes version.

That is very weak soup to blame the mortgage meltdown of 2008 on FDR who died in 1945.

Modern government is not going to return to its agricultural past and shrinka magically down to its dimensions of 1900.

You do not help your cause with such contorted reasoning.

Well....how about I prove it.

Sure: if Democrats had not invaded the private housing market, created Fannie and Freddie......would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


Of course not.


Bankers would have continued to provide the fiduciary requirements of their profession....and there would not have been 'NINJA' loans....

"A NINJA loan is a slang term for a loan extended to a borrower with "no income, no job and no assets". Whereas most lenders require the borrower to show a stable stream of income or sufficient collateral, a NINJA loan ignores the verification process."
NINJA Loan Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/n/ninja-loan.asp



Liberal policy is responsible for the mortgage meldown....and same began with Roosevelt.

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

'
If you'd like to disagree with any of the above....feel free.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

That's the CliffNotes version.

That is very weak soup to blame the mortgage meltdown of 2008 on FDR who died in 1945.

Modern government is not going to return to its agricultural past and shrinka magically down to its dimensions of 1900.

You do not help your cause with such contorted reasoning.

Well....how about I prove it.

Sure: if Democrats had not invaded the private housing market, created Fannie and Freddie......would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


Of course not.


Bankers would have continued to provide the fiduciary requirements of their profession....and there would not have been 'NINJA' loans....

"A NINJA loan is a slang term for a loan extended to a borrower with "no income, no job and no assets". Whereas most lenders require the borrower to show a stable stream of income or sufficient collateral, a NINJA loan ignores the verification process."
NINJA Loan Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/n/ninja-loan.asp



Liberal policy is responsible for the mortgage meldown....and same began with Roosevelt.

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

'
If you'd like to disagree with any of the above....feel free.

Blaming all that on FDR is the stretch I was objecting to and this notion you seem to have that modern government can return to its minarchist 19th century past. Those two things are not winning you any lurkers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

 

[GaryDog]

Yeah, you have zero clue what Marxism is. But that's probably because you've foregone actual education for homeschooling with a bible in your face.

Wow, three wrong assertions in a row; you are on a roll today.

BTW, I have forgotten more about Marxism than you have ever known, dude.

Sounds like you've forgotten everything.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

You have no right to a job. You understand that, right? Employers don't exist to provide you with a life style. Corporations and small businesses start up to provide a product or service to others and jobs are a byproduct of that. The only compensation you are entitled to is what you and your employer agree to at the time of your hire.

To claim taxpayers are obligated to subsidize people for not making enough money at their jobs is bunk because one has nothing to do with the other. Most people on welfare are there because they don't make enough money to support a child they had no business having in the first place.

 

[oldsoul]

Wow. So how the heck did people survive before A/C?

In houses DESIGNED for open air flow instead of modern house designs that have sealed rooms that presume you have central air flow through vents instead.

There was also the cool screened porch, a tall glass of ice cold tea, and houses placed to catch a nice evening breeze.

Did the south get settled after A/C was invented?

The population of the South was much lower than it is today. Makes me want to ban AC, cause then maybe all the Yankees would self-deport and not continue their stay and fucking up the South.

I guess most, if not all, people where insane before cable then.

People had other ways of entertaining themselves prior to TV that have almost entirely vanished save for radio and the movie theater.

Local plays, vaudville and the neighborhood musicians provided most people with their entertainment back in the days before WW2. Most circles of friends had people who could play a guitar/piano or carry a tune and they would entertain themselves by making their own music for themselves and family.

Do you ever do that, have friends and family over and sing songs and play what instruments your friends have and know how to play?

These are social conventions that are not likely to make their way back except for the few devotees.

I have had several jobs that I could, and did, walk/ride bike to. It really is not that hard. You just have to choose:

1. move closer to the job you want. or
2. take a job you want less.

Yes, there are always a handful of jobs nearby if you live in an urban area. The local CVS for example, or Giant or Wallmart. Most people need a much larger employer pool than that to find work, Einstein.

And if you are too poor to afford a car, how do you move across the county to a new place closer to the job? Hike it carrying one piece at a time?

Pretty simple. And then there is always the option of car-pooling....

Lol, CAR POOLING? This is a very certain indicator that you dont know what you are talking about as MOST j obs do not just happen to have fellow workers who live nearby.

Yes, things are always 'pretty simple' when it is someone elses problem and you are simply being a mindless critic.

LOL, thank you. You make my point quite nicely. That is, none of the things you mentioned are "necessities". As for the car-pooling...I never said they have to be people whom you work with. Friends, neighbors, people who work near you, there are nearly endless options.

 

[Andylusion]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal
​

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

 

[oldsoul]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal
​

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Ohhh, that's gotta hurt, Jim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The election of Franklin Roosevelt caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Had he not ignored the Constitution, and invaded the private home market....Fannie Mae....it never would have happened.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

That's the CliffNotes version.

That is very weak soup to blame the mortgage meltdown of 2008 on FDR who died in 1945.

Modern government is not going to return to its agricultural past and shrinka magically down to its dimensions of 1900.

You do not help your cause with such contorted reasoning.

Well....how about I prove it.

Sure: if Democrats had not invaded the private housing market, created Fannie and Freddie......would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


Of course not.


Bankers would have continued to provide the fiduciary requirements of their profession....and there would not have been 'NINJA' loans....

"A NINJA loan is a slang term for a loan extended to a borrower with "no income, no job and no assets". Whereas most lenders require the borrower to show a stable stream of income or sufficient collateral, a NINJA loan ignores the verification process."
NINJA Loan Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/n/ninja-loan.asp



Liberal policy is responsible for the mortgage meldown....and same began with Roosevelt.

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

'
If you'd like to disagree with any of the above....feel free.

Blaming all that on FDR is the stretch I was objecting to and this notion you seem to have that modern government can return to its minarchist 19th century past. Those two things are not winning you any lurkers.

I care only about truth.

There is no authorization in Article I, Section 8 for providing homes for individuals, nor for any sort of insurance, social nor medical.


I am not opposed to those endeavors....if they had been provided in a constitutional manner....the amendment process.


It was Franklin Roosevelt who cowed the Supreme Court, and ended the Constitution as the law of the land.

Now.....your objection to said constitutional process?
Your disagreement that FDR was the distal cause of the meltdown.....the actual start of the avalanche ...and...

By endorsing creeping communism....enforcing government occupation of the private economy without authority to do so, he gave us the this:

"... the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. But that doesn’t take into account long-term effects of homeowners who may be less socially mobile — and therefore contribute less to the economy over time."
How Much Did the Financial Crisis Cost?

 

[PoliticalChic]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 

[oldsoul]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

And the truth shall set you free. Or as free as the government will allow you to be.

Wow, listen to me...that almost sounds like the government controls the citizens. whoops. The constitution informs us our nation was founded on the idea that it's the other way around. The govt., and it's employees, serve at the will of "We the People..." So sorry about that.

 

[Andylusion]

She is dead on accurate. Yeah, it may never happen. But that doesn't change the fact she is right. I had a relative who was warned that if he didn't stop drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused, because everyone was using 'contorted reasoning'. He's dead now.

You can call it whatever you want, but she is still correct.

You still have this difficulty with using Reason and Logic.

I know plenty of alcoholics that are still quite alive after being warned of imminent death which only proves that taking risks doesnt always result in dire negative outcomes. So your anecdotal story proves nothing, and it is illustrative that you dont recognize that fact.

And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

And the truth shall set you free. Or as free as the government will allow you to be.

Wow, listen to me...that almost sounds like the government controls the citizens. whoops. The constitution informs us our nation was founded on the idea that it's the other way around. The govt., and it's employees, serve at the will of "We the People..." So sorry about that.

That's how it used to be. Now politicians are fairly efficient at convincing the public that every freedom curtailing policy is in their favor. There are even idiots on this forum that have said openly that we should be thankful for government protecting us from our own freedom.

Moronic beliefs like that, didn't happen by accident. The government has worked tirelessly to convince the public that they can't help themselves, but only government can.

 

[Spare_change]

Growth of wealth is a multi-generational proposition. Not everybody is going to get rich in their lifetime. Their goal should be to make it BETTER for their children - a goal the current generation of parents have seriously failed to reach. Of course, they find all kinds of people, organizations, etc to blame - but the cold reality is that they are so concerned with their own comfort and their own "stuff", they really don't care about their children.

True, but the economic change and growth in functionality of modern life makes it necessary to keep the poor within reach of the middle class in functional terms so they dont become a permanent under class.

It amazes me that you have no compunction about stealing from others in order to get what you want ....what happened to earning it?

Taxation to pay for welfare is for the good of society and is not theft.

The permanent underclass is maintained by creating government programs that offer no path to an increased financial reality, providing them a living subsistence with no possibility for growth, thus ensuring that their presence in the underclass is permanent.

Creating a permanent underclass and marginalizing the growth potential of whole segment of society is NOT "for the good of society", and constitutes the basest of thefts and the use of other people's money to solidify your position as the controlling element.

Ask yourself - what is the purpose of our government? Now, ask yourself - how does welfare help meet that purpose? In those two answers, you will find the fallacy of your position.

 

[Spare_change]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

"We all pay in"? Are you ignorant? How would that even make it a "right" even if true?

Its a social contract that binds us all together for the common good.

So is religion

No it isnt, religion is divisive. Welfare is paid for by all and enjoyed by all.

Ludicrous - and so far divorced from reality, I'm not sure you can see it from there.

 

[Spare_change]

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.