The Welfare State: The Future is Now.

[KNB]

Why do those that claim to be Christian, are the ones that hate it when the hungry can eat, the homeless can get a place to live and those without a cloak are given one and more?

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

Record corporate profits could help the poor in the form of higher wages. Then Conservatives could claim that Reagan's "trickle down" economic theory actually works.

 

[Moonglow]

And look how many of the rich attend church and claim to follow Christian doctrine....

 

[PoliticalChic]

And look how many of the rich attend church and claim to follow Christian doctrine....

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.



[/url]

Without plowing through your verbal diarhea, what's your alternative?

thanks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do those that claim to be Christian, are the ones that hate it when the hungry can eat, the homeless can get a place to live and those without a cloak are given one and more?

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

100% correct, blacky!

. Even though the term 'poverty' had real meaning during those times, unlike today, those who were truly destitute was a far, far smaller proportion than the group we so identify today.

Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of in earlier times by other human beings- not by bureaucracies.

a. The important difference was that the government may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.

Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


The proof that the government solution doesn't work is that poverty has not been obliterated, or even alleviated.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.






1. "Forty-seven million people participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and costs have increased over 358 percent since 2000.

a. The increase in recent years cannot be attributed to the economic recession..., but lax eligibility requirements and an aggressive campaign by governments to boost their rolls."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."
Scribd

a. "….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. "Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




3. Only the willfully blind refuse to see that Liberal government's aim is not to decrease poverty and welfare dependency, but to spread it to ever increasing numbers.

a. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”





4. Need proof that the government want to increase the above?
"Spending on advertising and outreach for food stamps by federal and state governments has also increased, now amounting to $41.3 million a year.

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Despite the additional spending, the USDA claims 18 million Americans are still “food insecure.”

Tanner notes the program is more successful in breeding dependence on government, which was apparent last weekend when the EBT system shutdown in several states, resulting in chaos.

“The left is correct when they talk about how small food stamp benefits are, about an average of $4.50 a day,” Tanner said. “And yet we’re told that people can’t survive without them.”

Under Obama, enrollment has surged to almost 48 million. While some chalk up the increase to the recession, Tanner finds little evidence that is the case.

“SNAP is no longer a program targeted at the poorest Americans who may need some temporary help, but it has become part of an ever-growing permanent welfare state,” the report said."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/



5. And....explain this:
"The omnibus spending bill before Congress continues to fund U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advertising programs for food stamps in foreign countries like Mexico,..."
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico

Instead of being all negative all of the time why not offer us your ideas on what would be the perfect conservative utopia? As a self appointment member of Mensa - at least in your own mind - I'm sure such a task would be simple for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.






1. "Forty-seven million people participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and costs have increased over 358 percent since 2000.

a. The increase in recent years cannot be attributed to the economic recession..., but lax eligibility requirements and an aggressive campaign by governments to boost their rolls."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."
Scribd

a. "….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. "Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




3. Only the willfully blind refuse to see that Liberal government's aim is not to decrease poverty and welfare dependency, but to spread it to ever increasing numbers.

a. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”





4. Need proof that the government want to increase the above?
"Spending on advertising and outreach for food stamps by federal and state governments has also increased, now amounting to $41.3 million a year.

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Despite the additional spending, the USDA claims 18 million Americans are still “food insecure.”

Tanner notes the program is more successful in breeding dependence on government, which was apparent last weekend when the EBT system shutdown in several states, resulting in chaos.

“The left is correct when they talk about how small food stamp benefits are, about an average of $4.50 a day,” Tanner said. “And yet we’re told that people can’t survive without them.”

Under Obama, enrollment has surged to almost 48 million. While some chalk up the increase to the recession, Tanner finds little evidence that is the case.

“SNAP is no longer a program targeted at the poorest Americans who may need some temporary help, but it has become part of an ever-growing permanent welfare state,” the report said."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/



5. And....explain this:
"The omnibus spending bill before Congress continues to fund U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advertising programs for food stamps in foreign countries like Mexico,..."
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico

Instead of being all negative all of the time why not offer us your ideas on what would be the perfect conservative utopia? As a self appointment member of Mensa - at least in your own mind - I'm sure such a task would be simple for you.

Mensa????


I'd have to turn 'em down.....those dopes.



What the world needs is an organization for geniuses with humility, but, there are so few of us left....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.






1. "Forty-seven million people participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and costs have increased over 358 percent since 2000.

a. The increase in recent years cannot be attributed to the economic recession..., but lax eligibility requirements and an aggressive campaign by governments to boost their rolls."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."
Scribd

a. "….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. "Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




3. Only the willfully blind refuse to see that Liberal government's aim is not to decrease poverty and welfare dependency, but to spread it to ever increasing numbers.

a. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”





4. Need proof that the government want to increase the above?
"Spending on advertising and outreach for food stamps by federal and state governments has also increased, now amounting to $41.3 million a year.

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Despite the additional spending, the USDA claims 18 million Americans are still “food insecure.”

Tanner notes the program is more successful in breeding dependence on government, which was apparent last weekend when the EBT system shutdown in several states, resulting in chaos.

“The left is correct when they talk about how small food stamp benefits are, about an average of $4.50 a day,” Tanner said. “And yet we’re told that people can’t survive without them.”

Under Obama, enrollment has surged to almost 48 million. While some chalk up the increase to the recession, Tanner finds little evidence that is the case.

“SNAP is no longer a program targeted at the poorest Americans who may need some temporary help, but it has become part of an ever-growing permanent welfare state,” the report said."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/



5. And....explain this:
"The omnibus spending bill before Congress continues to fund U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advertising programs for food stamps in foreign countries like Mexico,..."
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico

Instead of being all negative all of the time why not offer us your ideas on what would be the perfect conservative utopia? As a self appointment member of Mensa - at least in your own mind - I'm sure such a task would be simple for you.

Mensa????


I'd have to turn 'em down.....those dopes.



What the world needs is an organization for geniuses with humility, but, there are so few of us left....

It seems this ^^^ self appointed genius can't lay the foundation upon which to build the ideal conservative utopia. I would surmise that her unwillingness to do so is based not on an inability but because any effort to formulate one would reveal her ideology leads to a dystopian society, one where diversity in all of its manifestations - especially independent thinking - is quelled by The Authority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do those that claim to be Christian, are the ones that hate it when the hungry can eat, the homeless can get a place to live and those without a cloak are given one and more?

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

Yes it is. The argument against the welfare state is the argument that it does the poor more harm than good.

Well, if you're poor, and you get a handout from the government,

or a handout from the Church,

what's the difference to you?

Besides, although a Church might not 'force' a member to give to the poor, there is most certainly an expectation that you will do your duty, so to speak, as an upstanding member and good Christian,

and pay your 'tithe' or the like.

 

[gipper]

Why do those that claim to be Christian, are the ones that hate it when the hungry can eat, the homeless can get a place to live and those without a cloak are given one and more?

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

Yes it is. The argument against the welfare state is the argument that it does the poor more harm than good.

Well, if you're poor, and you get a handout from the government,

or a handout from the Church,

what's the difference to you?

Besides, although a Church might not 'force' a member to give to the poor, there is most certainly an expectation that you will do your duty, so to speak, as an upstanding member and good Christian,

and pay your 'tithe' or the like.

So giving to your church to help the poor, is the same as the government taking, by force if necessary, your property to give to the poor.

Only in the minds of radical progressives...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do those that claim to be Christian, are the ones that hate it when the hungry can eat, the homeless can get a place to live and those without a cloak are given one and more?

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

Allowing helping the poor to be voluntary is just a tax on the generous,

or a tax break for the greedy.

Unless you reject the idea of democratic government itself, then you have to accept that the People deciding that the greedy will also have to chip in is just one more way the system functions as it is meant to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't speak for Christians, but the argument against the welfare state isn't an argument against altruism. No one is complaining about people helping the poor. The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

Yes it is. The argument against the welfare state is the argument that it does the poor more harm than good.

Well, if you're poor, and you get a handout from the government,

or a handout from the Church,

what's the difference to you?

Besides, although a Church might not 'force' a member to give to the poor, there is most certainly an expectation that you will do your duty, so to speak, as an upstanding member and good Christian,

and pay your 'tithe' or the like.

So giving to your church to help the poor, is the same as the government taking, by force if necessary, your property to give to the poor.

Only in the minds of radical progressives...

Can I choose to defend myself, and say I don't need the government to defend me militarily, and then expect to be exempted from paying all my taxes that go to defense?

Or is it fair, just, and appropriate to force me to pay for that defense?

 

[gipper]

Yes it is. The argument against the welfare state is the argument that it does the poor more harm than good.

Well, if you're poor, and you get a handout from the government,

or a handout from the Church,

what's the difference to you?

Besides, although a Church might not 'force' a member to give to the poor, there is most certainly an expectation that you will do your duty, so to speak, as an upstanding member and good Christian,

and pay your 'tithe' or the like.

So giving to your church to help the poor, is the same as the government taking, by force if necessary, your property to give to the poor.

Only in the minds of radical progressives...

Can I choose to defend myself, and say I don't need the government to defend me militarily, and then expect to be exempted from paying all my taxes that go to defense?

Or is it fair, just, and appropriate to force me to pay for that defense?

Defending the nation from foreign invasion, is hardly the same thing as confiscating wealth from some, to give to others.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. No where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to steal from some and give to others. It does however provide for the common defense of the nation.

See the difference?

 

[Wildman]

1. The increase in recent years is the result of the recession and the government trying to get assistance to those who need it. freebeacon.com/study-food-sta...lfare-program/ economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...tamps-program/
2. Anybody can recognize the far right’s desire to punish the poor. Winston Churchill supported the expansion of government services after WWII.
3. The expanded services’ expense now will save several times its cost in prisons and continuing welfare on the far side.
4 And demonstrate how the Omnibus Spending bill services food stamp ads in Mexico is a bad thing if it is aimed at American citizens there.

1. "The increase in recent years is the result of the recession..."
No it isn't.

.

It's not because of anything significant that Obama has done. Virtually every relaxation of eligibility limits for food stamps has been done at the state level.

You know, that state vs. federal government thing that you conservatives adore:

There have been policy changes that have relaxed the eligibility requirements for food stamps, but they’ve been enacted by state governments, not Congress or the Obama administration. Since the end of the Clinton administration, states have had the option to raise the maximum limits for gross income and assets. In 2008, about 20 states took that option, according to the USDA, and now 43 states have.

Gingrich says Obama is the ?food stamp president.? Is he? - The Washington Post

You know, that state vs. federal government thing that you conservatives adore...

yaaa, we know all about the state vs fed thingy, but.., have you ever heard about the word "COERCION"...? it is, "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats." THAT is what happens in most cases.

 

[hangover]

While I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, or any kind of welfare for that matter.
At least those produce jobs and give something back to society,whether it's beef or jobs,at least it's something.

Destroying welfare for the poor, in order put them in prison, costs five times more. That's like castrating yourself so that you can be morally superior.

So being poor automatically makes you a criminal?

That's pretty much how cons see it. Stupid huh. They'd rather pay $40k a year to keep someone in prison than to pay $10 a year to keep them on welfare.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

100% correct, blacky!

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION], [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION], I don't think this is the real problem.

We'd always want welfare and welfare-related benefits to be as low as possible. Well, at least those of us who don't feel it's right to look to the federal bureaucracy to "fix" everything. And welfare, per se, just does not cost that much in the grand scheme of things. Further, there are a lot of people on welfare who simply do not have the capacity to do that much for themselves. Meh, fine, let's help them with a structured system.

No, to me the real problem is that those who "care" about "the poor" are getting away with their absolutist, "us vs. them", "rich vs. poor" bullcrap. Worse, those who oppose them are making it easy with absolutism of their own. End welfare, end this, end that. Man, talk about an easy target. Jealousy is a far easier sell than sacrifice.

As a result, we've created and are exacerbating more and more dependence on "someone else", because that "someone else", you see, "didn't earn that" or "didn't build that" or "doesn't deserve that". So with its absolutism on something like welfare, the Right is making it easy for the Left to take the focus off of personal responsibility and hard work, and on greed and handouts. Everyone's a victim. How often do you see lefties challenging people to work harder and to sacrifice more to get what they want? They're experts at dividing people into groups, and the Right is playing right into their hands.

The culture, the focus, needs to be taken away from us vs. them and put back on what people can do for themselves.

Both sides are culpable, and we've passed the tipping point now.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem is when you want to force your neighbors to help the poor.

100% correct, blacky!

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION], [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION], I don't think this is the real problem.

We'd always want welfare and welfare-related benefits to be as low as possible. Well, at least those of us who don't feel it's right to look to the federal bureaucracy to "fix" everything. And welfare, per se, just does not cost that much in the grand scheme of things. Further, there are a lot of people on welfare who simply do not have the capacity to do that much for themselves. Meh, fine, let's help them with a structured system.

No, to me the real problem is that those who "care" about "the poor" are getting away with their absolutist, "us vs. them", "rich vs. poor" bullcrap. Worse, those who oppose them are making it easy with absolutism of their own. End welfare, end this, end that. Man, talk about an easy target. Jealousy is a far easier sell than sacrifice.

As a result, we've created and are exacerbating more and more dependence on "someone else", because that "someone else", you see, "didn't earn that" or "didn't build that" or "doesn't deserve that". So with its absolutism on something like welfare, the Right is making it easy for the Left to take the focus off of personal responsibility and hard work, and on greed and handouts. Everyone's a victim. How often do you see lefties challenging people to work harder and to sacrifice more to get what they want? They're experts at dividing people into groups, and the Right is playing right into their hands.

The culture, the focus, needs to be taken away from us vs. them and put back on what people can do for themselves.

Both sides are culpable, and we've passed the tipping point now.

.

"We'd always want welfare and welfare-related benefits to be as low as possible."

Not my contention.

1. I'd want as much welfare as necessary to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves....

...but not for those who won't provide for themselves.





2. Soul-less government may transfer material wealth, but it is eminently clear that this is the very opposite of what is necessary.

a. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..




3. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

a. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

b. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.




c. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

 

[Fishlore]

One of the most disappointing confusions in our political conversation comes from the use of the word "welfare" to refer to public assistance for the needy, which colors understanding of the phrase coined by J.M. Keynes, "the welfare state."

What Keynes meant by "the welfare state" was a broad change in the idea of the role of government away from the laissez faire model of 19th century Liberalism to the belief that government has a direct responsibility for the condition of the individual citizen.

With the exception of a handful of reactionary cranks, everybody now accepts the idea that government has some role in ensuring the health, education and welfare of its citizens. How and how much continue to be legitimate topics of debate.

The Republican propaganda machine has elided the term "welfare" i.e. public assistance with the term "welfare state" to create the distorted vision of the federal government as an enabler of layabouts. This is clever nonsense but a useful club for the class warfare waged between the 1% and the rest of Americans. Don't be fooled.

 

[editec]

Margaret Thatcher once said:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Editec once said:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody has all the money.

And there are folks who whine if they are not the ones with 'all the money.'

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

 

[Mac1958]

You're right, PC I should have written:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody ELSE has all the money

That can definitely be a danger when one end of the political spectrum is doing essentially nothing to challenge people to improve their own lives, instead choosing to paint them as victims of those meanies over there.

That tactic appears to work like a charm.

.