Welfare is good for the economy because it encourages the poor to use their money into local businesses.
We pay our taxes, some of the taxes go to welfare, and the Poor give that money to local businesses. And the Poor have the power to choose what businesses flourish and which don’t.
Getting rid of welfare would put small local business in danger. Fast food already puts them in danger as it is.
The only type of welfare we should remove is welfare to the rich…they are rich, why do they need our money? They take it everyday already.
It also reduces crime, less people out there stealing. Even in batman cartoons once the joker was rich he stopped murdering people. Same as what we see on this forums, Joker just keeps quiet to the woods, long as you stay outta his shed you are good. If any thing, he’s a hero, said he would save us from Hillary.
Welfare is good at controlling disenfranchised populations satiated from organized revolting and outright rebellion. It’s effective only until it runs out of a pool of money to fund itself. When that happens it loses its effectiveness.
Speaking in terms of economics you’ll find public welfare is a part of the same financial slush fund that the elites are siphoning off from everybody. It’s all coming from the same place. Public welfare is public revolution and rebellion insurance for the elites.
There are two hidden costs to welfare, otherwise yes it is a very good idea. Hidden cost 1 is the opportunity cost of the money lost to wealthy people who must give it in taxes to the welfare system, since the idea is that wealthy people would invest or blah blah whatever else with that money which is now going o the poor for basis needs like food. Hidden cost 2 is simply the administrative cost of transferring a dollar from here to there (from rich person’s pocket to poor person’s pocket).
There’s also the issue of fostering long term dependency of poor people; so welfare systems should take this into account and always build in ways to improve people’s long term employment and economic prospects… but even regardless of this, welfare is still a necessary and good thing.
Bottom line is that it’s better to help people out who are so poor they can’t really afford a bare-bones life, especially when there are kids involved. And if it risks some increasing of dependency or a couple hidden costs well so be it.
And yes welfare recipients will spend almost all welfare money directly into the “real economy” which is good of course. Conservatives are fond of painting welfare taxes as a direct drain on the economy as if X dollars in taxes going to welfare simply vanished from the economy-- not so. Is just moving from point A to B, still being spent in the economy, perhaps more efficiently than it would be spent by some millionaire on another boat or whatever. Economics says that when you reduce prices you generate increased efficiency of spending.
Hyperbole. Of course wealthy pay taxes. Look up the percentage of where taxes come from, and you’ll find that the top tier of wealth-earners pay the majority of taxes.
Yes the wealthy also cheat the system and avoid taxes, get tax breaks from their GOP cronies in govenment, but still, you can’t say they don’t pay taxes.
Yes they do that too, but they still pay taxes… Although they should be paying lot more than they are (Hillary paid 30% income tax rate on millions of dollars… we used to actually have a progressive tax system in the US, not anymore. Someone making just $38,000 a year is paying 25% tax rate while Hillary Clinton is paying just 5% more, what a joke.)
As opposed to the people actually making the money, actually doing the work, actually contributing to society, the ones who are actually worth something, giving their money (you know, the money they earned) to small businesses?
If you are talking about corporate welfare, yeah agree 100%. I am unaware of any such “rich person welfare”.
You mean like stealing money from the people who earned it, to give it to largely low-life scum who in past generations would have been rightly weeded out by natural selection? (Yeah there are exceptions, maybe many exceptions, but on the whole the point, however uncomfortable is the bloody truth)
In my country, we have employment insurance for when you lose a job out of your control, you have disability welfare if you are disabled (largely abused). We have Social Insurance for retirement. So what the fuck is welfare for? In my experience, it seems to supplement income from drug dealing and supporting “newcomers” who have contributed NOTHING to society and by all measures WILL NEVER DO SO.
The problem with economic or social arguments for removing or significantly reducing welfare is that it could lead to an
increase in crime. This places a greater economic and social burden upon society. And so these arguments are fallacious
I am no fan of overbearing authority or enforcement (say bolstering law enforcement with the tax money currently going to the potential criminals), but bribing potential criminals with a monthly stipend so they won’t become actual criminals is demonstrably false and is the real fallacious argument. I don’t believe holding ourselves ransom to low-life scum is the answer.
Where’s my welfare to prevent me from becoming a criminal? Just because I CAN buy things, doesn’t mean I want to waste my money on it. Maybe I want those Nikes just as bad as XXXXX 'who wanted dem Nikes but dint have no money so he jus hadda steal dem Nikes, you no?"
People who steal nikes are worse degenerates than those who are on Welfare.
A jobless, digruntled man can be reasoned with by throwing money at him. Nike stealers cannot.
Wasn’t under the impression that wealthy people actually worked. I mean, all they do is sit at tables discussing the pros and cons of ideas and marketting. You might as well say I am “working” at ILP by promoting the DnA machine and giving out social ideas and plans.
Bailouts and companies which get handed money when they ask for it. Like Google.
Predators and parasites aren’t weeded out by natural selection, they are the natural selection.
That’s harsh. My fat lazy friend is on welfare but some day he will be a star and contribute to society more than anyone ever did.
My point was that without welfare there would almost inevitably be an increase in crime. But to say it is a bribe to potential criminals
suggests that every one receiving it is of that mind set when in fact only some are. So that is simply lazy stereotyping and nothing else
Often, they are one and the same. Again, with other programs in place, what is welfare for?
There is EI (in my country) for losing your job. Not an argument. If you become a Nike stealer because you are a jobless disgruntled person (sexist lols) as soon as someone DOESN’T throw money at you, then you are exactly the same.
Not an argument. It is not for you to decide what employment is work and what is not. (that isn’t to say I agree with the amounts of money involved)
I already addressed this. Yes, bailouts blah blah blah, I agree, corporate welfare/bailouts are horse shit. (in general, though of course if a company is going to go under that employs the whole town, well first of all some heads should roll, and the company shouldn’t be GIVEN money, but there should be some way to save the situation)
OK natural selection wasn’t the best way to describe it. Large swaths of these people would die off and eventually not be a problem as they are eliminated from the gene pool. The world will always have predators and parasites and it is not restricted to the welfare recipients by any stretch.
Lol Trixie, if I didn’t know better I’d say you were trolling.
Wrong. You specifically said a reduction in welfare = more crime. Therefore, those that receive welfare who are potential criminals is a large enough proportion to significantly affect crime stats. Because we go overboard and give welfare to ‘not’ potential criminals does not negate the former. Again, with other programs in place, what is welfare for?
