Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you for your well thought out response.Well, I haven't read the whole article, mind you, but, for starters, the claim that somehow welfare is at the "heart" of the current economic crisis is simply unfounded. Then there's the claim cutting subsidies on school lunches, housing, and meds would not result in people going without school lunches, housing, and meds - this is simply not logical and furthermore goes entirely against elementary economic theory.
A subsidy on any normal good allows more people access to it: if oil is subsidized, more people can afford to buy more oil, if the subsidy ends less people can afford to do so. Eliminating the subsidy may not have much societal significance if the good in question is comic books or cookies, but when the good in question is housing or medicine there are human consequences. Now, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to question whether the subsidy is worth it, or whether it is 'good' or 'bad' or whatever - that's all perfectly debatable. What isn't debatable is that the end of subsidies on things like school lunches, housing, and medicine will necessarily make at least some people go hungry, homeless, and med-less. Again, whether this is acceptable or not is debatable, that it would occur is not.
In the American context, it's safe to say that the majority of the poor would not be hungry or homeless (maybe med-less) - they would just shift consumption to cheaper alternatives like McDonald's Dollar Menu items, city-limits shanties, and subsidized medicines from Mexico and Canada (as millions already do). After all, it's not like everyone is homeless and starving in welfare-less countries like Honduras and the Central African Republic - people definitely get by, just... not as well, and not as many.
While I have no problem with government providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, our welfare system tends to make people dependent on government handouts and removes incentive people need to pull themselves out of the hole they find themselves in.
It's the old "give a man a fish" parable. We have passed out free fish for so long, we've created a voting block that demands more fishes but hasn't the incentive to learn to fish for themselves.
The "poor" get enough assistance that they can afford nice cars, flat screen tv's, cell phones for their kids and $100 plus sneakers. Why?
People should not be "comfortable" of welfare. They should not live as well as the blue collar working stiff who's saving up to buy a house and is paying for their fish with his taxes.
That, for the most part, is incorrect and part of the myth. And a good number of people that are pointing out that this plays into racism..are correct. Because it does. The people that perpetuate this myth may not be racists themselves..but they know how to play to them.
If you compare the social programs with other countries on par with the United States, around the world..the US is pretty stingy with it's poor.
[. There goes my big rant on welfare.
Thank you for your well thought out response.
While I have no problem with government providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, our welfare system tends to make people dependent on government handouts and removes incentive people need to pull themselves out of the hole they find themselves in.
It's the old "give a man a fish" parable. We have passed out free fish for so long, we've created a voting block that demands more fishes but hasn't the incentive to learn to fish for themselves.
The "poor" get enough assistance that they can afford nice cars, flat screen tv's, cell phones for their kids and $100 plus sneakers. Why?
People should not be "comfortable" of welfare. They should not live as well as the blue collar working stiff who's saving up to buy a house and is paying for their fish with his taxes.
That, for the most part, is incorrect and part of the myth. And a good number of people that are pointing out that this plays into racism..are correct. Because it does. The people that perpetuate this myth may not be racists themselves..but they know how to play to them.
If you compare the social programs with other countries on par with the United States, around the world..the US is pretty stingy with it's poor.
I think half the problem is that, it appears that liberals want more entitlements... like the do in Europe. Now, a major part of the problems that EU countries have found themselves in over the past couple of years is because of those entitlement programs. We simply do not want to go down that road. It is fine to say 'hey, compared to other countries, we're really stingy' but.... liberals seem to want to keep increasing those entitlements... and then we won't be 'stingy', we'll be Europe.
Most countries in Europe, on the other hand, are desperately trying to get away from entitlements and become more like the US. Why? Because they found out the hard way that it's unworkable, unaffordable and, most importantly.... it is really damaging for individuals to live on welfare. It is, in fact (and I mean, cold, hard, researched and evidenced fact) that is it hugely damaging to minorities. Hence, it is the democrats, with their love of entitlements for minorities who do the most damage to those communities. And, what is worse, liberals know that... and they don't care. Hence, liberals are more racist than conservatives.
Greatest thread ever.