CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Spare_change]

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.

There is some permanency in allowing people to remain on welfare and not encourage them to leave it, but some have no choice such as the elderly on SocSec or military people on pensions, etc.

Your sweeping generalizations are simplistic in the extreme.

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.

There are a great many purposes found in the Constitution for our federal and state governments.

That you think there is only one or a few simple purposes that can be attributed as one, is telling, and provides the fallacy of your position.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

 

[Spare_change]

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

Which gum wrapper did you find that em on?

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"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.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

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.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

Actually, what we have is a poster who has no interest in searching through his prior posts in other threads that show the error of the other member's thinking.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

If you can't address the issue, but must resort to personal attacks, I strongly suggest you just shut the hell up.

 

[Spare_change]

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job.

Who would want to work for walmart if they make less then the government offers them?

How would walmart survive ? They either die or raise their wages more.

I have never been poor so how does it work?

Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?

So in essence company's like walmart subsidise the us government welfare program not the other way around.

Having been poor -- you have no idea --- and having been on welfare, I can assure you that government assistance is a poison.

 

[Carla_Danger]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

And you just happened to ask her about these fathers, this woman you just bumped into? That had to be a very unique conversation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

There is some permanency in allowing people to remain on welfare and not encourage them to leave it, but some have no choice such as the elderly on SocSec or military people on pensions, etc.

Your sweeping generalizations are simplistic in the extreme.

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.

There are a great many purposes found in the Constitution for our federal and state governments.

That you think there is only one or a few simple purposes that can be attributed as one, is telling, and provides the fallacy of your position.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

Ridiculous unsupported assertions.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare and fasfa only helps people a billion times more then Charity.

Charity isn't serious.

Its clear that charities can only help on a smaller scale unless they are acting as an agent of the government.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

I have seen this argument put before and it never ceases to entertain me. Corporations do not operate in a bubble. The sole pursuit of profit is not an acceptable business model.

Corporations benefit from the advances made by our society and need to play their part in supporting that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

I have seen this argument put before and it never ceases to entertain me. Corporations do not operate in a bubble. The sole pursuit of profit is not an acceptable business model.

Corporations benefit from the advances made by our society and need to play their part in supporting that.

It simply amazes me how many middle class people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by corporate propaganda that they seem to think that it is the corporations that have had taxes raised on them and have to pay more than their fair share in taxes.

In 1950 corporations paid $2 for every 43 the individuals in the USA paid.

Now it is down to $1 for every $4 that individuals pay and these doofuses keep demanding more tax cuts for CORPORATIONS! They argue that corporate taxes are too high when they are at their lowest proportionate to individual tax revenues in IRS history!

It is simply amazing how people allow themselves to be brainwashed to work against their own interests - simply mind boggling!

 

[JimBowie1958]

As with all things, one need only reflect on what the nazis did, and be for the opposite

That is ridiculous.

You do know that the Nazis were also for public education, welfare, advancing their economy and like mathematics too, right?

So we should ditch public education, etc, simply because the Nazis did it?

Sheesh.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When did the corporations get to dictate everything ?

Since they don't, the answer is never.

Yes, they do and you swallow it lock block and tackle, dude.

 

[xband]

Charity begins and ends at home.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

During the remaining 128 hours of the week.

Your response that suggests you are more interested in punishing the poor than helping them to get on their feet.

So you think it wise to rob them of 80 hours a week of pointless make do BS labor, then leave them the evenings and weekends to look for work, get trained in a new career line and still eat, sleep, shit, shower, shave and have a little time for the family?

You are not being serious about helping these people with that kind of nonsense; you are working on the presupposition that they are merely lazy asses and forcing them to do a little work will drive them to getting real jobs.

Were we talking about 20 hours of work a week, I could buy the idea, as it would help them to get out, stay used to early rising, and make social contacts, but a full work week that would interfere with actually getting a real job?

That is punitive nonsense.

 

[xband]

When up to your neck in alligators, it is easy to forget that the initial objective was drain the swamp.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

I have seen this argument put before and it never ceases to entertain me. Corporations do not operate in a bubble. The sole pursuit of profit is not an acceptable business model.

Corporations benefit from the advances made by our society and need to play their part in supporting that.

It simply amazes me how many middle class people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by corporate propaganda that they seem to think that it is the corporations that have had taxes raised on them and have to pay more than their fair share in taxes.

In 1950 corporations paid $2 for every 43 the individuals in the USA paid.

Now it is down to $1 for every $4 that individuals pay and these doofuses keep demanding more tax cuts for CORPORATIONS! They argue that corporate taxes are too high when they are at their lowest proportionate to individual tax revenues in IRS history!

It is simply amazing how people allow themselves to be brainwashed to work against their own interests - simply mind boggling!

How is that being brainwashed?

How is that going against our own interest

 

[JimBowie1958]

How is that being brainwashed?

How is that going against our own interest

You are working to increase your own taxes so corporate taxes can be lowered and you cant understand how that is being brain washed? Lol, well, OK, I will actually answer that one as it might possibly be an honest question, though doubtful.

The federal government needs a certain amount of money each year or they run a deficit.

If you are fighting to reduce corporate taxes, you are in effect arguing to INCREASE INDIVIDUAL taxes.

And that is EXACTLY what has happened as the ratio of corporate to individual tax revenues has gone from 2:3 to 1:4 since 1950.

How is arguing for individual taxes to go up in the interest of the Middle Class?

I am sure you have some canned argument that justifies lowering corporate taxes while raising individual taxes, but I am still laughing from PCs claim that starvation makes you healthier, and I could use some more laughs these days.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How is that being brainwashed?

How is that going against our own interest

You are working to increase your own taxes so corporate taxes can be lowered and you cant understand how that is being brain washed? Lol, well, OK, I will actually answer that one as it might possibly be an honest question, though doubtful.

The federal government needs a certain amount of money each year or they run a deficit.

If you are fighting to reduce corporate taxes, you are in effect arguing to INCREASE INDIVIDUAL taxes.

And that is EXACTLY what has happened as the ratio of corporate to individual tax revenues has gone from 2:3 to 1:4 since 1950.

How is arguing for individual taxes to go up in the interest of the Middle Class?

I am sure you have some canned argument that justifies lowering corporate taxes while raising individual taxes, but I am still laughing from PCs claim that starvation makes you healthier, and I could use some more laughs these days.

I don't have canned or talking points I am an original...

How the does the government need a certain amount of money when the feds print it out of thin air?

All I know from experience is you over tax people or companies we leave...see ya. Then were are you going to get the money from?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How is that being brainwashed?

How is that going against our own interest

You are working to increase your own taxes so corporate taxes can be lowered and you cant understand how that is being brain washed? Lol, well, OK, I will actually answer that one as it might possibly be an honest question, though doubtful.

The federal government needs a certain amount of money each year or they run a deficit.

If you are fighting to reduce corporate taxes, you are in effect arguing to INCREASE INDIVIDUAL taxes.

And that is EXACTLY what has happened as the ratio of corporate to individual tax revenues has gone from 2:3 to 1:4 since 1950.

How is arguing for individual taxes to go up in the interest of the Middle Class?

I am sure you have some canned argument that justifies lowering corporate taxes while raising individual taxes, but I am still laughing from PCs claim that starvation makes you healthier, and I could use some more laughs these days.

Oh yea give me a link on this one

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended.

Your argument that people are actually better off on starvation diets and that the Great Depression was good for their health while periods of prosperity are bad, is just complete nonsense that shows either you are not taking the subject seriously or incapable of doing so.

You have let your ideology lead you into the intellectual fever swamps and I dont have the time to fish you out, so good luck.

"Well, you can expect more of that when you argue that FDR caused the real estate meltdown of 2008, when he has been dead for 80+ years and his policies have long since ended."

I didn't argue it....I proved it.

You couldn't find anything to deny in my posts.

Now you've simply become another "is not, issss nooottttttt!" poster.

Even more disappointing.