For Those Who Complain About Welfare

[nano-bug]

I recently came across someone who made angry arguments against welfare recipients. Since this was not the first time I've heard such a reaction toward "lazy asses" I decided to examine the complaint.

What I found is the person may have the right to grudge the aim of his/her taxes, but this priority is so far off the mark. Trillions of dollars are spent on wars and billions are spent on space exploration and yet this does not bother the tax payer in the same infuriating way. On one hand, taxes go toward the killing of people and the quest to find water on mars, while dirty water remains here. On the other hand, taxes go toward feeding people and keeping them warm with shelter. Why does the humane one cause outrage, but not the other. There is abuse and there is fraud in every area of a society that looks to capitalize on one another.

It seems clear that the money that comes from people and returns to people should not incite people. But it does. The very act of a handout upsets a large section of people. But I ask why, in comparison to the cost of war? Why do these people favor blood money over donations? That type of perspective is twisted.

The welfare of others is one of survival, not lifestyle. Capitalism is based on the idea of winners and losers. To win, someone must also lose. One business offers better prices and another business goes extinct. Livelihoods are affected everyday by this type of unsympathetic competition. But the one time the loser gains off the hard work of another, this becomes the ultimate taboo of the tax payer.

I've noticed the complaints usually come from people who hate their jobs. The complaints are in direct correlation to how much they want to crawl back into bed on monday morning. They suffer, so should everyone else, is the their motto. In the same way someone might have jealousy towards the wealthy, these crabs have jealousy almost over free time. My question is why, if these people show unsympathetic views toward the needy, should the needy care about affecting the wallets of the advantageous? Capitalism is unfair. Why point the finger at one unfair way taxes are misused, but ignore/condone the rest as being fair? This is a terribly narrow view.

Truth is, if welfare is abolished or social security fails the working class might get the righteous moment in the sun, whereby the disabled must work or die. But not before long, when the working class sits down to eat the dinner they've earned, do the poor start prying at their windows and doors. This is not a threat, but the stark reality of basic survival. Sure, taxes are for paving over potholes in the street. If welfare was abolished, taxes would go to removing dead bodies from the street. Take your pick.

[PavlovianModel146]

What I found is the person may have the right to grudge the aim of his/her taxes, but this priority is so far off the mark. Trillions of dollars are spent on wars and billions are spent on space exploration and yet this does not bother the tax payer in the same infuriating way. On one hand, taxes go toward the killing of people and the quest to find water on mars, while dirty water remains here. On the other hand, taxes go toward feeding people and keeping them warm with shelter. Why does the humane one cause outrage, but not the other. There is abuse and there is fraud in every area of a society that looks to capitalize on one another.

I agree with you completely on this point. I've personally found space exploration not to be a worthless endeavor, per se, but an endeavor that should be one of extreme excess. Bascially, when we have full employment (read: everyone that WANTS to work working) and every American is a homeowner and has enough to eat, then we can worry about space.

It seems clear that the money that comes from people and returns to people should not incite people. But it does. The very act of a handout upsets a large section of people. But I ask why, in comparison to the cost of war? Why do these people favor blood money over donations? That type of perspective is twisted.

I think you're ignoring a basic economic principle which happens to be that war makes more money and creates more jobs than, "Hand-outs." You have such things as increased military numbers, gun manufacture, ammo manufacture, fighter jets, tanks, communication systems, satellites, intelligence technology. There's money everywhere, and from sources that otherwise do not come into play. Food Stamps at WAL*MART? It's a drop in the ocean for agriculture and a drop in the ocean for WAL*MART.

It seems that the question is, do you want someone fed or someone shot, and people are choosing shot, but it's not really as simple as all of that.

The welfare of others is one of survival, not lifestyle. Capitalism is based on the idea of winners and losers. To win, someone must also lose. One business offers better prices and another business goes extinct. Livelihoods are affected everyday by this type of unsympathetic competition. But the one time the loser gains off the hard work of another, this becomes the ultimate taboo of the tax payer.

It's about placating. Nobody wants starving kids, the thought of starving kids pisses off the masses. You have to give them something somewhere, at least enough to keep them quiet, or you're going to have a full-out revolution. Most revolutions were not a result of haves and have-nots, they were a result of haves and have-nothings. That's why you don't tax really low wage-earners to death, like they did in other countries (maybe some still today?) and in other centuries.

That was just to your first sentence, I guess. Concerning the rest of it, I'm not terribly alarmed by Capitalistic Competition as long as all-out monopoly can be avoided. Smaller businesses should theoretically (and in practice) be better at finding niches, something that huge corporations can't do because everything needs to be done a set way. The small businesses can survive a failure to price-compete; the small businesses don't survive because of a failure to adapt to the changing market by carving out a niche for themselves. You can usually carve out such a niche by exceeding expectations with respect to the level of service you provide, the big businesses can't touch it.

I've noticed the complaints usually come from people who hate their jobs. The complaints are in direct correlation to how much they want to crawl back into bed on monday morning. They suffer, so should everyone else, is the their motto. In the same way someone might have jealousy towards the wealthy, these crabs have jealousy almost over free time. My question is why, if these people show unsympathetic views toward the needy, should the needy care about affecting the wallets of the advantageous? Capitalism is unfair. Why point the finger at one unfair way taxes are misused, but ignore/condone the rest as being fair? This is a terribly narrow view.

Yeah. I suppose some people could stand to modify their thinking a little bit in this respect and maybe look at it from a standpoint of, if some of the people receiving substantial welfare assistance were more intelligent and/or motivated, then maybe some of the people complaining about such recipients would not have their jobs! I do agree that there is a lot of bitching over the free time that such welfare recipients have, although, I don't think that people fully appreciate what that free time is spent doing. I remember on one occasion in my life I could not work for one week due to a medical reason, and the life of the, "Welfare bum," became intolerably dull after about three days.

The worker can have hope for a promotion, and when he does have substantial free time, he might afford to take a vacation. The welfare recipient can hope for nothing, other than maybe some kind of COLA increase, although, I don't think those always apply to welfare.

Ultimately, resentment is, unfortunately, a fact of life for many people. I'm also guilty of it, but I'm trying to improve myself in that respect by really mulling over things and trying to find a sort of empathy for everyone. I have often failed to spend an adequate amount of time considering things from the standpoint of how other individuals feel. In any case, though, it all comes down to resentment, and while everything is case-by-case, there are a few generalities for who is to blame. The welfare recipient could be more motivated to work instead of blaming others, the workaholic (like me) could probably find a way to make as much money and spend a lesser portion of his life doing it, and the very rich could often do a little more to share the wealth.

In fact, I read an article about the, "Worst Celebrity Tippers," you could probably Google it, the article literally made me sick. For God's Sake, at least you have someone out there who gives a damn enough to try and you cannot give him the gratuity that he/she, and all in that occupational field, rely upon? Disgusting.

Truth is, if welfare is abolished or social security fails the working class might get the righteous moment in the sun, whereby the disabled must work or die. But not before long, when the working class sits down to eat the dinner they've earned, do the poor start prying at their windows and doors. This is not a threat, but the stark reality of basic survival. Sure, taxes are for paving over potholes in the street. If welfare was abolished, taxes would go to removing dead bodies from the street. Take your pick.

I very seriously doubt if the placation will ever cease, so I don't think we're going to have to worry about haggard and gaunt masses prying our doors and windows to get to our mashed potatoes, but I guess it is a frightening possibility. I will reiterate that one possibility is that, when all of these people are (possibly) forced to attempt to enter the workforce, some people currently in the workforce will be displaced out of the workforce, and there will also be a race to the bottom with respect to the wages/salaries people are willing to work for because the labor market will be even more employee-saturated.

In short, it will be a fucking mess.

[aronofsky40]

I love welfare. Huge fan here.

[ags83]

I recently came across someone who made angry arguments against welfare recipients. Since this was not the first time I've heard such a reaction toward "lazy asses" I decided to examine the complaint.

What I found is the person may have the right to grudge the aim of his/her taxes, but this priority is so far off the mark. Trillions of dollars are spent on wars and billions are spent on space exploration and yet this does not bother the tax payer in the same infuriating way. On one hand, taxes go toward the killing of people and the quest to find water on mars, while dirty water remains here. On the other hand, taxes go toward feeding people and keeping them warm with shelter. Why does the humane one cause outrage, but not the other. There is abuse and there is fraud in every area of a society that looks to capitalize on one another.

Yes there are a lot of people who simply have some emotional response to the fact that they 'have to' go work all day and that everyone should have to. You would think if they are so jealous.... however, that they would simply go on welfare also. Many others such as myself, however, do not get 'angry' at welfare but have reasoned arguments as to why it is harmful to society and particularly the families (or just children) that will get 'trapped' (I'm not saying there is physical force being used, rather the lifestyle is incentivised) into that welfare type existence. You are right that there are much more important things to go after first. Welfare does not kill and maim people, dropping bombs does.

The welfare of others is one of survival, not lifestyle. Capitalism is based on the idea of winners and losers. To win, someone must also lose. One business offers better prices and another business goes extinct. Livelihoods are affected everyday by this type of unsympathetic competition. But the one time the loser gains off the hard work of another, this becomes the ultimate taboo of the tax payer.

This is false. Capitalism is not based on winners and losers. Although in some instances there is a winner and looser, cooperation vastly outweighs competition in a free market. Sometimes there is necessary reordering (call that destruction if you wish....) but this benefits society as a whole (like horse and carriage employees would have lost their jobs when the car was invented), to try and stop this reordering just creates far larger problems later (look at what is happening now around the world, this is not a free market). Please find my thread about capitalism here and critique my OP (there has been no intelligent criticisms so far....) if you want to talk about this further.

I live in Thailand where there is very little welfare. I do not see people dying in the streets. This is because people don't just sit around and starve. They do whatever it takes to make a living. Doing something with your life (it could be businessman, rice farmer, street sweeper.....it does not matter) leads to greater happiness in ones life. Sitting around on your couch watching TV and waiting for your next welfare check to come in leads to misery. This is why I oppose welfare.

[Svettypoo]

People aren't inherently lazy. However, people are opportunists. If abusing the system is easy, people will do it. That is what I have a problem with.

Just the other day I was watching the news doing a story about a professional who was out of work. She said that she found a minimum wage job but decided not to take it because she would be receiving less than her EI payments. The funny thing was... this was reported on as a matter of factly. There wasn't even a mention of how this is unethical.

The thing is... I know people in this country wont starve to death. People in the US and most other developed countries would only starve to death if they were suffering from a severe mental disability and hidden away somewhere. In your heart you know this as well...

[uglypeoplefucking]

The anti-welfare thing is a kind of reverse class-warfare begun by the wealthy and prosperous and sold to the middle and working classes in the form of anti-tax sentiment.

Typical but rather effective strawman, those who exploit the average working person have managed to convince the average working person that they are actually being exploited by people who have less than the average working person.

It's pretty fucked up actually, but so goes the world.

[Kriswest]

I agree with Svetty, Its those that abuse the system that are lazy asses. It is supposed to be a hand up not a hand out. I know people that have used the system for a hand up and those that have used it for a hand out, then those that really need it for life because physically or mentally life dealt them a bad hand. The system is broken when there are generations that depend upon it. To me thats abuse.

[nano-bug]

I agree with Svetty, Its those that abuse the system that are lazy asses. It is supposed to be a hand up not a hand out. I know people that have used the system for a hand up and those that have used it for a hand out, then those that really need it for life because physically or mentally life dealt them a bad hand. The system is broken when there are generations that depend upon it. To me thats abuse.

here's what I want to know Kris, how can we recognize the abuse. If you were to take the mentally ill for example, a lot of them seem fine until they are put under presssure, work stress. it's tough to say someone is lazy if they need to avoid post traumatic stress more than they want rewards and pride from work. the sacrafice they have to make in this tradeoff gets overlooked.

[Svettypoo]

I agree with Svetty, Its those that abuse the system that are lazy asses. It is supposed to be a hand up not a hand out. I know people that have used the system for a hand up and those that have used it for a hand out, then those that really need it for life because physically or mentally life dealt them a bad hand. The system is broken when there are generations that depend upon it. To me thats abuse.

here's what I want to know Kris, how can we recognize the abuse. If you were to take the mentally ill for example, a lot of them seem fine until they are put under presssure, work stress. it's tough to say someone is lazy if they need to avoid post traumatic stress more than they want rewards and pride from work. the sacrafice they have to make in this tradeoff gets overlooked.

If somebody was mentally ill and not able to work society would not let that person starve... Do you really think that everyone is so heartless?

We all have to make sacrifices. And I'm always trying to help people in need. However, suggesting that government officials should try and measure that "sacrifice" and then appropriate funds as they please is unethical because it leaves so much room for corruption and it dehumanizes the whole thing.

[Svettypoo]

I think you're ignoring a basic economic principle which happens to be that war makes more money and creates more jobs than, "Hand-outs." You have such things as increased military numbers, gun manufacture, ammo manufacture, fighter jets, tanks, communication systems, satellites, intelligence technology.

I think war is similar to handouts because it simply reallocates money. Takes it form taxpayers and gives it to the war effort. The question that one has to ask oneself before doing this is "Will value be created?". Since war usually doesn't create value I think it doesn't benefit the economy. One way to actually create value and bring it back to the country is to export weapons... Unfortunately, a bunch of other ethical questions come into play with that.

[ags83]

here's what I want to know Kris, how can we recognize the abuse. If you were to take the mentally ill for example, a lot of them seem fine until they are put under presssure, work stress. it's tough to say someone is lazy if they need to avoid post traumatic stress more than they want rewards and pride from work. the sacrafice they have to make in this tradeoff gets overlooked.

If people did not want to help the mentally ill, then there is no way that they would be helped.... I mean obviously you couldn't have a democracy, the only way to do it would be to have some overlord forcing everyone to help the mentally ill....of course then he would be labeled as evil anyway.

Good news is that people are actually pretty good and generally like helping people who they believe really need the help. And you do not need a government as a middleman because then a massive chunk will go towards completely incompetent hopelessly inefficient administration that only the government could provide.

[Kriswest]

I agree with Svetty, Its those that abuse the system that are lazy asses. It is supposed to be a hand up not a hand out. I know people that have used the system for a hand up and those that have used it for a hand out, then those that really need it for life because physically or mentally life dealt them a bad hand. The system is broken when there are generations that depend upon it. To me thats abuse.

here's what I want to know Kris, how can we recognize the abuse. If you were to take the mentally ill for example, a lot of them seem fine until they are put under presssure, work stress. it's tough to say someone is lazy if they need to avoid post traumatic stress more than they want rewards and pride from work. the sacrafice they have to make in this tradeoff gets overlooked.

Doctors for the most part are fairly honest about who they endorse for relief. You can't get medical if you don't have a Doctor claiming it. So i don't see the issue with mental or physical issues. I do have issues when women keep popping out kids and we pay for it and them. I have issues with people that manage to fake it. I have issues with people that are third and 4rth generation recipients. Some how we need to fix it.