How does society benefit from welfare?

why a loan? why not just let them work it off as I propose?

Isn't that the same thing? In short, I think your proposal is excellent. But it falls short, as many welfare recipients would do, in a federal jobs program, exactly as they have done in life, which is to say they would not thrive. Many recipients are simply not interested in pulling their weight, and would bog down such a program. And so, when kicked out, they should have their future benefits terminated, and be forced to repay that which they have yet to pay. Tax intercepts work very well.

Who said there wouldn't be incentives to do good and high quality work? first off... you have to think about this in the right way. Let's suppose you are on welfare....not only that, but you are the worst kind of abuser of the system. All of a sudden here comes that asshole Steelplate with his referendum on bringing back the CCC and WPA. It gets through Congress and is signed by the President making it Law.

Now you have to work....just to receive the benefits you used to get for doing nothing. You start out as a general laborer on some public works project. Busting your ass, doing all the most physical labor....sounds pretty shitty, doesn't. it? You have one of three choices.....suck it up and keep working for those benefits, or get a real job that isn't so demanding. The third option is to excel at the laborer job to earn the right to be trained into something better.....once you receive that training, there is no bump in pay....you're still working for your benefits. At some point, you are going to say....I can do better....and you will.

I know...a lot of you want an instant solution. But an instant solution is just pissing in the wind, because no politician is going to simply cut them off....they want re-elected....and it doesn't matter which party....you make enough people outraged, you're gone.

Will there be people who never get out of the system? Sure....I can see people who are hopelessly addicted that may never get out of laborer mode....people with legitimate physical and/or mental handicaps to the point where they can't work at all...but even a guy in a wheelchair can answer phones and whatnot...I'm talking debilitating.
There arre a significant number of true parasites that simply have no intest in working. There are lots of incentives to do good, high quality work in the private sector. But lots of recipients avoid those incentives like the plague.

And how much do you pay someone for their work? It seems to me like those that are simply averse to work always have a political party to fall back on to claim that life is just not fair. And lots of those that do comply with the demands you set forth are just a bit less averse to work. But will jump on any excuse to claim that they are too hard done by. And there is a political party that will be sympathetic to their " plight". Your idea is an absolutely excellent start. But there is a much larger problem, and that is that half of the country would coddle these people for their votes. Which is a tremendous disincentive.
 
Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole. Just apply it now to welfare.

So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole? How does it not?

Welfare helps prevent rebellions.

Let em rebel. Nothin that law enforcement can't handle. Of course, that still leaves them on welfare, but perhaps a good head cracking followed by a jail sentence wil teach them a lesson.
 
How does society benefit from welfare?

It doesn't. It is a detrimental aspect of society. The government absolutely adores the idea though. Right along with bombing people into peace.
 
1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.

2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.


Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.

JMO.

Clarify this for me, why can't you leave the money in the pockets of the people who earned it. Don't they spend money? Or is it only the people who are gifted money stolen from others who spend profligately enough to satisfy government? What is wrong with allowing people receiving stolen money to spend their own (albeit) meager earnings on things they need, instead of things they want?
 
Without a well established and entrenched welfare component of our society liberal politicians would not be reelected. The welfare package proposed in the 1930's was designed as a temporary safety net not a new class of citizens, but then again give a worthy concept to a politician and they thoroughly trash it.
 
1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.

Maybe.

2. It helps keep the economy rolling

You're a f-ing retard. Paying people not to work hurts the economy, as well as gives them the leisure time to cause trouble, hurting the economy even more. (Money will get spent, whether it's used as welfare or used for something else.)

Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done.

You're forgiven for you retarded point above.
 
Without a well established and entrenched welfare component of our society liberal politicians would not be reelected. The welfare package proposed in the 1930's was designed as a temporary safety net not a new class of citizens, but then again give a worthy concept to a politician and they thoroughly trash it.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." There are almost always unintended consequences that are completely overlooked when the stated intent of such programs is so noble and inarguable.
 
1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.

Maybe.

2. It helps keep the economy rolling

You're a f-ing retard. Paying people not to work hurts the economy, as well as gives them the leisure time to cause trouble, hurting the economy even more. (Money will get spent, whether it's used as welfare or used for something else.)

Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done.

You're forgiven for you retarded point above.

This is the clean zone, you can't call people names or you will be banned at some point.
 
Isn't that the same thing? In short, I think your proposal is excellent. But it falls short, as many welfare recipients would do, in a federal jobs program, exactly as they have done in life, which is to say they would not thrive. Many recipients are simply not interested in pulling their weight, and would bog down such a program. And so, when kicked out, they should have their future benefits terminated, and be forced to repay that which they have yet to pay. Tax intercepts work very well.

Who said there wouldn't be incentives to do good and high quality work? first off... you have to think about this in the right way. Let's suppose you are on welfare....not only that, but you are the worst kind of abuser of the system. All of a sudden here comes that asshole Steelplate with his referendum on bringing back the CCC and WPA. It gets through Congress and is signed by the President making it Law.

Now you have to work....just to receive the benefits you used to get for doing nothing. You start out as a general laborer on some public works project. Busting your ass, doing all the most physical labor....sounds pretty shitty, doesn't. it? You have one of three choices.....suck it up and keep working for those benefits, or get a real job that isn't so demanding. The third option is to excel at the laborer job to earn the right to be trained into something better.....once you receive that training, there is no bump in pay....you're still working for your benefits. At some point, you are going to say....I can do better....and you will.

I know...a lot of you want an instant solution. But an instant solution is just pissing in the wind, because no politician is going to simply cut them off....they want re-elected....and it doesn't matter which party....you make enough people outraged, you're gone.

Will there be people who never get out of the system? Sure....I can see people who are hopelessly addicted that may never get out of laborer mode....people with legitimate physical and/or mental handicaps to the point where they can't work at all...but even a guy in a wheelchair can answer phones and whatnot...I'm talking debilitating.
There arre a significant number of true parasites that simply have no intest in working. There are lots of incentives to do good, high quality work in the private sector. But lots of recipients avoid those incentives like the plague.

And how much do you pay someone for their work? It seems to me like those that are simply averse to work always have a political party to fall back on to claim that life is just not fair. And lots of those that do comply with the demands you set forth are just a bit less averse to work. But will jump on any excuse to claim that they are too hard done by. And there is a political party that will be sympathetic to their " plight". Your idea is an absolutely excellent start. But there is a much larger problem, and that is that half of the country would coddle these people for their votes. Which is a tremendous disincentive.

truthfully? I think the "true parasites" aren't the norm....I think that there's plenty of them, but not the norm. If they don't want their benefits, fine....go sell crack...whatever. He'll eventually get caught or get shot, or die of addiction. You can't plan for every contingency. But....benefits for work, opportunity to learn skills to get you permanently out of the system and into the mainstream is a hell of a lot better than what we have.....not to mention that it's cheap labor to help solve our huge infrastructure problem...so the taxpayer gets a return on the investment as well.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)
 
Who said there wouldn't be incentives to do good and high quality work? first off... you have to think about this in the right way. Let's suppose you are on welfare....not only that, but you are the worst kind of abuser of the system. All of a sudden here comes that asshole Steelplate with his referendum on bringing back the CCC and WPA. It gets through Congress and is signed by the President making it Law.

Now you have to work....just to receive the benefits you used to get for doing nothing. You start out as a general laborer on some public works project. Busting your ass, doing all the most physical labor....sounds pretty shitty, doesn't. it? You have one of three choices.....suck it up and keep working for those benefits, or get a real job that isn't so demanding. The third option is to excel at the laborer job to earn the right to be trained into something better.....once you receive that training, there is no bump in pay....you're still working for your benefits. At some point, you are going to say....I can do better....and you will.

I know...a lot of you want an instant solution. But an instant solution is just pissing in the wind, because no politician is going to simply cut them off....they want re-elected....and it doesn't matter which party....you make enough people outraged, you're gone.

Will there be people who never get out of the system? Sure....I can see people who are hopelessly addicted that may never get out of laborer mode....people with legitimate physical and/or mental handicaps to the point where they can't work at all...but even a guy in a wheelchair can answer phones and whatnot...I'm talking debilitating.
There arre a significant number of true parasites that simply have no intest in working. There are lots of incentives to do good, high quality work in the private sector. But lots of recipients avoid those incentives like the plague.

And how much do you pay someone for their work? It seems to me like those that are simply averse to work always have a political party to fall back on to claim that life is just not fair. And lots of those that do comply with the demands you set forth are just a bit less averse to work. But will jump on any excuse to claim that they are too hard done by. And there is a political party that will be sympathetic to their " plight". Your idea is an absolutely excellent start. But there is a much larger problem, and that is that half of the country would coddle these people for their votes. Which is a tremendous disincentive.

truthfully? I think the "true parasites" aren't the norm....I think that there's plenty of them, but not the norm. If they don't want their benefits, fine....go sell crack...whatever. He'll eventually get caught or get shot, or die of addiction. You can't plan for every contingency. But....benefits for work, opportunity to learn skills to get you permanently out of the system and into the mainstream is a hell of a lot better than what we have.....not to mention that it's cheap labor to help solve our huge infrastructure problem...so the taxpayer gets a return on the investment as well.
I doubt that there is much of a return on investment but I agree with you for the most part.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)
The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)
The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.

so, we should vote for a true corporatist like Willard "the rat" Romney?....naahh, I'll take my chances with Obama.
 
That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)
The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.

so, we should vote for a true corporatist like Willard "the rat" Romney?....naahh, I'll take my chances with Obama.

No doubt you will. You know there will be absolutely no pressure from his party or constituents to embrace the type of reform you stated you believed in.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)

This is true. Social welfare is small peanuts in comparison. As to the utility of social welfare, it is necessary because capitalism has periodic and sometimes systemic downturns which leave people out of work who would otherwise still be working.
 
When someone gets welfare, they don't have the desire to better their lives. Why work when you get get a check for sittin at home and doin nothin? There is so much fraud in the welfare system that its not really benefitin anyone. Those who work have to pay more taxes to cover those who are not working.

If welfare put money into the pockets of people who in return put it into business, then why are inner cities so run down and poor and violent? All you are doin is takin that money out of one persons hands who worked for it, and puttin into the hands of someone who didn't. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to better society.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

Well..all you have to do is check history to see what happens when wealth disparity becomes huge.

You get populist revolt. And in many cases, like in China and Russia, the outcomes, suck.
 
Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)

This is true. Social welfare is small peanuts in comparison. As to the utility of social welfare, it is necessary because capitalism has periodic and sometimes systemic downturns which leave people out of work who would otherwise still be working.

A very few hundreds of dollars to the poor single mom as opposed to TRILLIONS of corporate welfare dollars to Mittens and his cronies.

Simply no comparison.
 
That's a short sighted view.

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots.

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars.

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare.

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)
The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.

so, we should vote for a true corporatist like Willard "the rat" Romney?....naahh, I'll take my chances with Obama.

At least with the Obama plan..you had the survival of the financial and auto industry.

Romney was talking about letting them totally collapse..so a company like Bain could swoop in..sell off assets and ship jobs overseas.

For a hefty profit.
 
The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.

so, we should vote for a true corporatist like Willard "the rat" Romney?....naahh, I'll take my chances with Obama.

At least with the Obama plan..you had the survival of the financial and auto industry.

Romney was talking about letting them totally collapse..so a company like Bain could swoop in..sell off assets and ship jobs overseas.

For a hefty profit.

and that my friend, is one of the biggest problems with our country. A complete lack of community and patriotism in Corporate America. I can understand profits, I can understand obligations to stockholders...what I can't understand is screwing the strongest country in the world to achieve an impossible goal of perpetual growth.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top